Amendments under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC are permissible if necessary for proper adjudication, do not change the fundamental nature of the case, and do not prejudice the other party.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BANSAL, J.

I.A. 1586/2025 (condonation of delay in filing reply to application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC)

1. This application has been filed on behalf of the defendants seeking condonation of delay of 19 days in filing reply to the plaintiffs’ application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘CPC’).

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

3. Delay of 19 days in filing reply to the application is condoned.

4. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 39862/2024 (Order VI Rule 17 of CPC)

5. The present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ‘ALMOND DROPS’ amounting to infringement of trade mark/ trade dress, passing off and infringement of copyright along with other ancillary reliefs.

6. During the pendency of the suit, the present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking leave to amend the plaint.

7. By way of the present application, the plaintiffs seek to amend the plaint to bring on record facts pertaining to the following:

7.1. Three trade mark registrations and one pending trade mark application, all of which were filed by the plaintiff no.1 after the institution of the suit. The details of the aforesaid registrations/ application are provided below:

S. No.	Trade Mark Application No.	Mark	Date of Application	Date of Publication	Date of Registration
1.	4964451	ALMOND DROPS	04.05.2021	06.03.2023	28.07.2023
2.	4979103	ALMOND DROPS	20.05.2021	25.09.2023	27.02.2024
3.	5842987		10.03.2023	04.03.2024	20.07.2024
4.	6253726	BAJAJ ALMOND DROPS	10.01.2024	Pending	Pending

7.2. An interim order of injunction and a decree passed by this Court on 11th May, 2022 and 26th July, 2022 respectively in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants’ bottle manufacturer in a subsequent suit, which would be relevant in the present suit.

7.3. The plaintiffs’ sales turnover and advertising expenses in relation to their flagship product under the mark ‘BAJAJ ALMOND DROPS HAIR OIL’ subsequent to the filing of the suit.

7.4. The change in name and authorized signatories of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff no.1’s conversion from a public company to a private limited company.

8. Briefly, the undisputed facts of the present case which are relevant in the present application are set out below:

8.1. The present suit was instituted in November 2016.

8.2. The plaintiffs had set up a case for infringement of trade mark/trade dress as well as for passing off in the original plaint.

8.3. The issues in the present suit were framed on 2nd November, 2018.

8.4. The sole witness of the plaintiffs tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit on 6th September, 2019. The cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witness concluded on 2nd March, 2022.

8.5. The parties were thereafter referred to the Mediation Centre by this Court on 1st May, 2023. The mediation, however, failed on 6th October, 2023.

8.6. Since then, there has been no further proceedings in the present suit.

9. Ms. Kruttika Vijay, counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, has made the following submissions:

9.1. All the amendments sought to be introduced in the plaint are pursuant to events which occurred after the trial had commenced in the suit. Therefore, in spite of the plaintiffs’ necessary due diligence, the aforesaid amendments could not have been introduced prior to the commencement of trial in the suit.

9.2. Subsequent to the registration of the trademarks ‘ALMOND DROPS’ and

in favour of the plaintiff no.1, it acquired statutory ri