IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the expansive attitude required in allowing amendments to the plaint prior to trial and the plaintiff's right to claim damages as deemed appropriate.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

CM(M)-IPD 11/2023

1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 3 October 2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ"), rejecting an application filed by the petitioner, as the plaintiff in CS 58859/2016 (Star India Private Limited v. M/s Akuate Internet Services Private Limited & Anr.) under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to amend the plaint by enhancing the damages sought. The plaint initially claimed damages of Rs.50 lakhs. Thereafter, the plaintiff sought to enhance the damages claimed to Rs.2,01,00,000/-. Paras 1 to 3 of the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC read thus:

"1. That the Plaintiffs have filed the present suit praying inter alia for permanent injunction Against the Defendant No.1, rendition of accounts of profits, damages, etc. and the same is pending before this Hon'ble Court. The contents of the plaint are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. The Plaintiffs, however, crave leave to treat the contents of the plaint as part of the present application. The matter is coming up on 07.04.2016 for framing of issues.

2. That the Defendant No.1 is in the business of providing unauthorized contemporaneous text commentary, contemporaneous audio commentary, ball-by-ball score updates, match updates, etc. of information arising out of various cricket matches, including the Asia Cup 2014 Cricket Series (Asia Cup) vide its website www.cricbuzz.com and its mobile application CRICBUZZ available on various platforms such as Android, Windows phone, Apple IOS, Blackberry etc. By means of an agreement with the organizer of the Asia Cup i.e. Asian Cricket Council, the Plaintiffs have been granted certain Exclusive Rights with respect to the Asia Cup matches detailed in paragraph 9 of the Plaint. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 28.02.2014 restrained Defendant No. 1 from in any manner making available, through any medium whatsoever including but not limited to the Internet or Mobile, live/contemporaneous audio and/or text match commentary of the Asia Cup 2014 Cricket Series. The Hon'ble Court also provided Defendant No. 1 with the option, purely as an interim measure, to continue its business by either depositing INR 10 lacs per match of the Asia Cup, 2014 with the Registrar General of this Hon'ble Court or keep a gap of 15 minutes between the happening of the match and the score updates.

3. The commercial value of the property which forms the subject matter of the suit is considerable as is detailed in paragraphs 12 to 16 of the Plaint. Consequently, the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs in light of the unauthorized and illegal activities of the Defendant No.1 are substantial and significant and the exact value of the damages suffered cannot be estimated at this point of time. However, as a conservative estimate, without prejudice to the Plaintiffs' right to increase the amount of damages claimed, if and when the extent of the Defendant No. 1 s illegal activities are discovered, it is humbly submitted that for the proper adjudication of the dispute the damages claimed in the present suit are being claimed at Rs.2,01,00,000 (Two Crore One Lakh only)."

2. In the circumstances, the plaintiff sought to amend para 36 which dealt with valuation of the suit and the prayer clause in the suit only to the extent of revising the damages sought from Rs.50 lakhs to Rs.2,01,00,000/-.

3. Paras 9 and 10 of the impugned order read thus:

"9. I have heard the argument, of Id. Counsel for the parties on the above application and perused proposed amendments. Bare perusal of the proposed amendments shows that plaintiff wants to amend the valuation paragraph and the prayer clause of the main plaint. Plaintiff also wants to enhance the damages from INR 50,00,000 to INR 2,01,00,000 by way of the proposed amendments.

10. No reasons assigned as to what prevented the plaintiff from calculating t