S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

ORDER

I.A. No. 11928/2010

1. The plaintiff seeks striking-off of all the defendant's pleadings by inviting the Court to invoke its powers under Order 6 Rule 18 CPC.

2. The defendant had sought for amendment of its Counter-claim, based upon an alleged trademark registration issued in its favor on 31.03.2008. The amendment application was moved on 15.12.2009; after hearing counsel for the parties, the Court granted the application by its order dated 07.04.2010. The plaintiff contends that the time permitted by the Court to file amended Counter- Claim expired on 21.04.2010, and yet the defendant did not place the Counter- Claim and written statement on the record. It is argued that the defendant did not also seek any extension of time within the said prescribed period. The plaintiff's counsel argues that the defendant could have sought a further extension of 30 days which would have enabled it at best to file Counter- Claim/written statement by 20.05.2010. It chose not to do so and in these circumstances, argues the plaintiff, the defendant/counter-claimant should be stricken-off the record.

3. In support of the contention that the Court does not possess any power to extend the period beyond 30 days under Section 148 of the CPC, the plaintiff relies upon the judgment of this Court in Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care [CS (OS) 1908/2002 dated 13.07.2009]; reliance is also placed upon a ruling of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (D) by L.Rs. and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3708, which is to the following effect:

"XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

146. It may be true that not only the memorandum of appeal but also the reference was amended. Mr. Rao pointed out that the necessary amendments have been carried out in the application for reference or memorandum of appeal. In terms of Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such amendments are required to be carried out in the pleadings by a party who has obtained leave to amend his pleadings within the time granted therefor and if no time was specified then within fourteen days from the date of passing of the order. The consequence of failure to amend the pleadings within the period specified therein as laid down in Order VI, Rule 18 of the Code is that the party shall not be permitted to amend his pleadings thereafter unless the time is extended by the court. It is not in dispute that such an order extending the time specified in Order VI, Rule 18 has not been passed.

XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX"

4. It is argued that the defendant has not even moved an application setting-forth any reasons why the delay ought to be condoned and in these circumstances, the Court should invoke its powers and exclude the amendments in the record.

5. The defendant argues that while undoubtedly there is no separate application seeking condonation of delay, reasons for not filing the amended counter-claim within the time have been set-out in the reply to the application, being I.A. No. 11928/2010 itself. The defendant points-out to the relevant averments in the said reply at paras 6 to 8, which is to the following effect:

"XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

6-8 That as regards the averments made by the Defendant in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, the Counter Claimant most humbly submits that the delay in filing the amended Counter Claim was due to pure inadvertence and unintentional. That such delay would not prejudice the Defendant in any manner whatsoever. The Counter Claimant most humbly submits that the provisions of O 6 R 18, CPC are not mandatory in nature and the delay in filing the amended Counter Claim can be condoned by this Hon'ble Court either under S 148, CPC or by exercising its inherent powers under S 151 CPC. That the Plaintiff most humbly submits that the pleading of the registrations go to the heart of the infringement claim and are necessary to bring out the real questions in controversy between the parties.

XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX"

6. The defendant argues that the Court a