( 1 ) THIS civil revision is directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge dated 10. 8. 2000 by which an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure moved on behalf of the plaintiff respondent herein praying for amendment of the plaint has been allowed.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts. leading to the present revision are that the respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit under Section 105 and 106 of Trade and Merchandise Act against the petitioner-defendants claiming the proprietorship over the trade marks "kundan" and "kundan CAB" In respect of wires and cables. The petitioner is contesting the said suit and has filed a counter claim. A certain smt. Promila Sehgal had also filed a suit against the plaintiff-respondent and petitioner-defendants for restraining them from using the trade mark "kundan". During the pendency of the said suit Smt. Promlla sehgal assigned her trade mark "kundan" in favour of the petitioner-defendants and consequently the suit filed by Smt. Promlla Sehgal was withdrawn. The plaintiff-respondent. In view of the above change of circumstances, sought amendment by Incorporation of certain extensive paragraphs In the plaint which according to him were necessitated on account of the subsequent events. Besides the plaintiff-respondent also sought to raise the valuation of the suit from rs. l,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) to Rs. 10,00,000. 00 (Rupees ten lakhs) on account of the use of the trade mark of the plaintiff-respondent by the petitioner-defendants and their assignor Mrs. Promila sehgal. The application was opposed on behalf of the petitioner-defendants mainly on the ground that the amendment so far as It related to the enhancement in the valuation of suit was mala fide and aimed at taking the suit out of the jurisdiction of the district Court. The learned trial court has, however, allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff-respondent to amend the plaint subject to payment of Rs. 500. 00 as cost. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner defendants have come up in the present revision petition.

( 3 ) I have heard Shri Ishwar Sahai, learned senior counsel for-the petitioner and Shri Valmiki mehta, learned senior counsel for the respondent and have given my thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions.

( 4 ) IT may be noted at the very outset that there is no challenge to the impugned order so far as it has allowed the incorporation of certain paragraphs in the plaint which were necessitated on account of the subsequent event i. e. assignment of the rights of smt. Promila Sehgal to use the trade mark "kundan" in favour of the petitioner-defendants, and the attack of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the Impugned order is confined to permitting the plaintiff-respondent to increase the valuation of the suit to Rupees ten lakhs. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the proposed increase in the valuation of the suit from Rupees one lakh to Rupees ten lakhs is a mala fide attempt on the part of the plaintiff-respondent aimed at ousting the jurisdiction of the District court and tainted with ulterior motive and, therefore, the trial court ought not to have allowed this amendment and in any case increase in the valuation of suit from Rupees one lakhs to Rupees ten lakhs was arbitrary even on the premise that he was entitled to claim accounts from the petitioner-defendants for illegal use of the trade mark "kundan/kundan CAB" by smt. Promila Sehgal who has assigned the trade mark and business to the defendants. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff- respondents are not entitled to claim any rendition of account in respect of the business of Smt. Promila sehgal from the defendants prior to the assignment of her rights in their favour. The said claim/right if any, was mere right to sue incapable of transfer and enforceable against the petitioner-def