BALDEV SINGH Vs. GODRAN RUBBER PLASTIC INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been moved under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . In the application it is averred that the plaintiff adopted and conceived the design of footwear popularly known as Article No.002 in the year 1989 and has been continuously using the same since then upto the present time. The plaintiff is thus keen to amend by incorporating the aforesaid, his date of adoption and user, exclusive rights, his sale figures. The plaintiff moved the following amendment to be carried out in the plaint:-

(2.) It is mentioned that documents from 1989 were only found recently after a massive man-hunt was launched. It is for this that the said user was not claimed, just in case the plaintiff was unable to substantiate his claims. The plaintiff had even not specifically incorporated his user in the plaint.

(3.) Reply to this application has been filed by the defendant. The defendant has taken a preliminary objection that this application is not maintainable inasmuch as the amendment sought by the plaintiff is not necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. It is also mentioned that the plaintiff is attempting to alter the initial cause of action on which the suit was originally filed and further to introduce a new and inconsistent cause of action which amounts to materially altering the case of the plaintiff to the prejudice of the defendant. This application is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the said application intends to remove an admission made by the plaintiff in his replication.