Prior user amendment in a passing off suit upheld as necessary to decide the real controversy, with appeal maintainable.

The Delhi HC held that an intra-court appeal against an order allowing amendment of the plaint was maintainable because the impugned order arose under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 and the Commercial Courts Act appeal provision was enabling. It further held that the Joint Registrar lacked jurisdiction to finally decide a substantive amendment, since Rule 3(2) permits only formal amendments. The court upheld the plaint amendment to plead prior user from 1994 instead of 2004, finding it necessary to determine the real controversy in the infringement and passing off suit, not altering the suit's essential nature, and causing no irremediable prejudice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the intra-court appeal against the order allowing amendment of the plaint was maintainable; (ii) whether the Joint Registrar had jurisdiction to decide the amendment application under the Original Side Rules; and (iii) whether the amendment to the plaint, seeking to plead prior user from 1994 instead of 2004, was rightly allowed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): whether the intra-court appeal against the order allowing amendment of the plaint was maintainable.

Analysis: Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 confers a right of appeal against judgments and orders of the Commercial Division. The proviso was held to be enabling and not restrictive. The order under challenge was not one passed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but under Rule 5 of Chapter II of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The decisions relied upon to object to maintainability were distinguished on the ground that they concerned orders passed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and did not control an appeal from an order under the Original Side Rules.

Conclusion: the appeal was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the Joint Registrar had jurisdiction to decide the amendment application under the Original Side Rules.

Analysis: Rule 3(2) of Chapter II of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 permits the Registrar to decide only formal amendments. An amendment that alters the pleaded period of adoption and introduces a new basis of user through another group company is not a matter of form but of substance. Such an application required adjudication by the Court and could not be finally determined by the Joint Registrar under the limited delegation contained in the Rule.

Conclusion: the Joint Registrar acted beyond the jurisdiction conferred by Rule 3(2).

Issue (iii): whether the amendment to the plaint, seeking to plead prior user from 1994 instead of 2004, was rightly allowed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Order VI Rule 17 requires amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, especially at the pre-trial stage. Prior user was central to the infringement and passing off dispute. The proposed amendment merely enabled the plaintiff to plead a longer period of use of the mark and did not alter the essential nature of the suit. At the amendment stage, the truth or falsity of the proposed plea and the merits of the defence were not to be adjudicated. The amendment also caused no irremediable prejudice because the defendant could meet the case at trial.

Conclusion: the amendment was properly allowed.

Final Conclusion: the appellate court declined interference, upheld the allowance of the amendment, and left the respondent with the benefit of the impugned order.

Ratio Decidendi: a pre-trial amendment that is necessary to determine the real controversy and relates to a material issue such as prior user should be allowed without examining its truth at that stage, and an amendment that is substantive rather than merely formal cannot be finally decided by the Registrar under the limited Original Side delegation.

---