$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 18.12.2025 + CM(M) 2436/2025, CM APPL. 79842/2025, CM APPL.

79843/2025 & CM APPL. 79841/2025 RINAL INVESTMENT PVT. LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N.P. Singh and Mr. Barun Dey, Advocates versus M/S OMSONS MARKETING PVT. LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

O R D E R (ORAL)

1. Petitioner/defendant has assailed two orders, both dated 05.12.2025 passed by the learned commercial court, whereby its applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC were dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner/defendant, I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice. Rather, the petition appears to be an effort to somehow derail the trial.

2. Broadly speaking, when the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of Rs.17,51,499.38 was listed for plaintiff’s evidence, the petitioner/defendant filed two applications, one D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD2dpseD e6 .4o iN a 5 r g 0 3s t i .:4 a i e t 4 5 tc al . : a 0 f2 N = l9 2 l 2 C 0I u 7 0 yN c o = m 6 2 4 s, d 8 2 58 io be g 46 .7 = 1 =e 0 n c 92 H r 1 1 e a 6= . d 1c 1 Id 5 G d0 d 8 f b 3 H a0 8 18 y , e0 8 7 C o 0 83 G 9 :1 O u 6 3 , b I e = 7 R s 1 U2 2 t9 I H : R = 7 2 S 66 I H aT 3 D f G 4a 7 O - e5 H K , 7 0 l1c AF h b 8 C ne T i ' 2D 0 O,c= H f 4 E 0 6 G U P 5 L ' 5 I R AH cR fT 0 L I I S , 7 I O A e Hb F4 5K aD dA fe 1 E T cL 5H 4H 5P 5 7 I, A 5 0 C6 L9 ID9 I9A a 6 - f b 37 4 90 0 64 f 27 8 c6 0 63 c f8 b b, d 4 2 8 e 3 e 5 being under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, while the other being under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC, both of which were dismissed by way of two separate orders on the same day, which orders have been impugned in this petition.

3. It is contended on behalf of petitioner/defendant that they learned about certain understandings between the parties, though reflected in the statement of accounts of the petitioner/defendant, but the same have inadvertently not been mentioned in the written statement, so the petitioner/defendant seeks to amend the written statement by adding paragraphs 5A to 5G in preliminary submissions of the written statement. It is also contended on behalf of petitioner/defendant that the amendments sought are only explanatory in nature. Correspondingly, the petitioner/ defendant also wants to file additional documents pertaining to the proposed amendments, in case the amendments are allowed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant has taken me through the paragraphs 5A to 5G, which are sought to be inserted in the written statement by way of amendment. It is contended on behalf of petitioner/defendant that since trial is yet to commence, proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not come into play, so the amendments must be allowed liberally. Further, learned counsel for petitioner/defendant contends that the amendments sought are only explanatory in nature, so ought to be allowed.

5. I am in agreement with learned counsel for petitioner/defendant that since trial is yet to commence, the rigours of the proviso under Order VI Rule 17 CPC shall not come into play. But at the same time, the stage at D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD26-scD eb .f7 iN a 5b r g d 0 t i .: 44 a i e 4 2 tc 8 l . : a 7 e 2 N = 2 3 l 6 e 0I u 0 5 yN 3 e = m 2 d 8 6 s,8 5 4 io , 0b g 4 . 3p 4 = 1 e 0 n 5o 02 H r 1 e f =s 2. 9d 1 Id t G cd 7a d 8 4 b 3 H 6l 8 C 81 y e 2 8 77 C o 8 6 G 9 9: d O 6 3 cb I 6 e7 R a 1 U2 5 =c 9 I : R7 3 S f c 61 H aT 9 a 841 7 , 0 O - 5 0 K 7o 0110 AFb 8 u ee0 T ' 2D = 20 c3 H fH 64 E 0 , 6 P f5 L s ' I5 a Gt AH c f = ,0 H LI c D , 7 I n A eC be = 4 Ol5h G a d Ui f I , e 1R Rc 5I T S 4 5 H O5 7 5 0 F K 6 9A D9 9T Ea 6H Lf b 3H P4 9 A I 0 6,C Lf 2 8I Ic A D 0 which an amendment application is brought cannot be altogether ignored. For, that would indicate the genuineness or lack