S.L. BHAYANA, J.

By this order, I propose to dispose of this application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint.

2. The instant suit has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff for permanent injunction thereby claiming to restrain the defendants for passing off, infringement of trademark, copyright, damages etc. Plaintiff by way of this suit has claimed to be the user of trademark “GOLD MEDAL LABEL” since the year 1987.

3. By virtue of this applicant/ plaintiff is seeking amendment of plaint on the ground that the user claimed in the plaint as since the year 1987 is inadvertent mistake, in fact the plaintiff is using the said trademark since the year 1979-80.

4. Learned counsel of the applicant/ plaintiff argued that the mistake is apparent from the fact that the registered trademark “GOLD MEDAL” under No. 449747 in class 9 was dated 17/2/1986, which is much prior to 1987.

5. The applicant/plaintiff has also filed relevant Trademark journal pages under No. 518258 in class 09 and 518259 in class 12, whereby the user of the trademark GOLDMEDAL was mentioned since the year 1/1/1980 along with this application.

6. To support this application learned counsel of the applicant/plaintiff has relied upon the following judgments:

a) Alberto Culver Company vs. Fashion stores & Anr., 2005(30) PTC 269 DEL

b) Lakha Ram Sharma vs. Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., 2003(2) CTMR 106(SC)

c) Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs. M/S. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267

d) Prem Bakshi & Others vs. Dharam Dev & Others, AIR 2002 SC 559

7. On the other hand, on the behalf of the non- applicant/defendants, it was argued that the amendment sought to be made in the plaint is not necessary for the purpose to determine the real question in controversy and nature of the suit.

8. Further learned counsel of the non applicant/defendants argued that proposed amendment is superfluous and inconsistent with the facts as pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint and is only in the nature of wiping off admission made by the plaintiff as to the alleged use of trademark. If this is allowed it would have the effect of introducing a totally different and inconsistent new date of alleged use by the plaintiff of the trademark “GOLD MEDAL”.

9. To support his arguments learned counsel of the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:

a) Pfizer Inc vs. Pifer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., 2007(34) PTC 660 (Del)

b) Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Ladha Ram & Co., AIR 1977 SC 680

c) Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal & Ors. Vs. Kishore Washwani & Nitesh Ashok Wadhwani, 2005(31) PTC 401 (Bom)

10. After hearing counsel of the parties, I am of the view that amendment claimed appeared to be relevant for adjudication of the matter in controversy and for finally resolving all the disputes between the parties relating to trademark infringement. It is also well settled that the dominant purpose of allowing amendment is to minimize the litigation. Moreover, no prejudice would cause to the defendants, if this application is allowed.

11. The suit is otherwise at a primary stage; issues have not been framed as yet. Moreover, it is well settled law that while considering such kind of application, duty of the court is not to weigh the merits of the matter.

12. Each case is to be decided on its own facts. In view of the peculiar facts of the present case, the judgment on which non- applicant/defendants are relying upon are not applicable to the facts of this case.

13. It would be appropriate to take note of legal precedents on this point, which are as under:

a) In M/S Estralla rubber vs. Dass Estate (Pvt) Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 3295,Apex court observed as under:

“It is fairly settled in law that the amendment of pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 is to be allowed if such an amendment is required for proper and effective adjudication of controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of judicial proc