$~104 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 14.01.2025 + CM(M) 2296/2024, CM APPL. 20369/2024 & CM APPL.

49082/2024 USHA DRAGER PRIVATE LTD & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Manish Vashisht, Sr.

Advocate with Mr. Vierat K. Anand, Mr. Kumar Shashank, Mr. Harish Nadda, Mr. Vikalp Singh, Ms. Apoorva Gulati & Mr. Vedansh Vashisht, Advocates versus DRAEGERWERK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Sr.

Advocate with Ms. Shweta Bharti, Mr. J.K. Chaudhary, Ms. Sonali Khanna, Ms. Sukriti Verma, Ms. Vanshika Gupta & Ms. Adhya Shrotriya, Advocates CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA JUDGMENT (ORAL)

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.03.2024, passed by learned trial court in CS DJ-11859/2016 titled Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 2296/2024 Page 1 of 14 “Usha Drager Private Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Draegerwerk Aktiengesellschaft & Ors.”, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“Code”] for amending the valuation of the suit for injunction and rendition of accounts was dismissed.

2. Before dwelling and discussing the merits of the order, it would be apposite to discuss the brief factual background of the case.

3. Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts arising out of the joint venture dated 09.05.1987 and Foreign Collaboration Agreement dated 20.02.1990. Originally, the suit was filed before this Court but was subsequently transferred to the District Court in February 2016, following changes in the pecuniary jurisdiction. The suit was valued at Rs. 1 lakh for the relief of rendition of accounts.

4. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC, seeking discovery/production of certain documents for ascertaining the nature of equipments supplied and the amount of sales and revenue generated by the respondents. The said application was dismissed by the trial court. Petitioner assailed the order of the trial court before this Court vide CM(M) 1815/2019, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 06.01.2020, directing the trial court to determine which items warranted rendition of accounts based on evidence provided by the petitioner.

5. Petitioners sought to amend the valuation by increasing it to Rs. 200 crores, citing evidence of respondent’s turnover and their claim of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 2296/2024 Page 2 of 14

20% commission on sales and for this, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the petitioner before the trial court, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 16.03.2024.

6. The trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner mainly on the ground that petitioner was aware of the turnover figures since 2008 but failed to file the amendment application for 16 long years and such un-explained delay violated the due diligence requirement of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code.

7. The trial court was also of the view that valuation of the suit has to be done at the time of filing of the suit and any amendment which seems to amend the suit, is relegated to the date when the plaint is filed, and as such, plaintiff can be permitted to make valuation as on the date of filing of the plaint and not on account of any subsequent events. The trial court also emphasized that the application has been filed by the petitioner after final argument had commenced, and therefore, allowing the amendments at this stage, would disrupt the proceedings and cause great prejudice to the respondents.

8. Mr. Vashisht, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in a suit for rendition of accounts, the actual value of the suit is not known at the time of filing of the suit. It is submitted that as per affidavit of Sh. A.S. Rajput, PW-1/2, the turnover of the defendants for the period 2005 to 2008 was Rs. 115 crores and th