LAWS(DLH)-2009-4-56

HALDIRAM INDIA PVT LTD Vs. HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA

Decided On April 08, 2009
HALDIRAM INDIA PVT LTD Appellant
V/S
HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been filed under Article 227 of constitution of India impugning the order of trial Court dated 21st February, 2009 to the extent that it did not permit petitioners-plaintiffs to file an amended plaint, even though trial court by virtue of impugned order had allowed petitioners-plaintiffs' application for amendment dated 20th May, 2004.

(2.) MR. Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel for petitioners-plaintiffs stated that on 15th November, 1995, petitioners had moved I. A. No. 12420/95 under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC for recording assignment of subject trade mark in favour of a company "haldiram (India) Pvt. Ltd. " and for allowing consequential amendment in the plaint. Mr. Sethi, stated that by order dated 27th August, 2001, trial Court allowed the said application and directed an amended plaint to be filed. On 14th december, 2001, petitioners-plaintiffs even filed an amended plaint.

(3.) HOWEVER, on 20th May, 2004, petitioners moved an application for amendment of plaint on the ground that in the amended plaint filed on 14th December, 2001, paragraphs 11 (b)and 15 (2) were left out and paras 14 and 15 were not correctly reproduced. According to Mr. Sethi, petitioners' steno-typist while preparing amended plaint added the amendments allowed by order dated 27th August, 2001 not to the existing plaint as on that date but to an earlier plaint dated 21st January, 1992. Therefore, by 2004 amendment application, petitioners only sought correction of typographical errors with respect to amendments earlier allowed and which order had become final. Along with 2004 amendment application, a copy of amended plaint was annexed. However, according to Mr. Sethi, the annexed amended plaint was not signed and verified by petitioners-plaintiffs, though it was signed by their counsel.