Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 08.06.2026 passed by the Commercial Court in Commercial O.S.No.281/2025. The respondent (plaintiff) had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner (defendant) from passing off its goods under the mark DATE BITES or any similar mark, along with damages and other reliefs. The plaintiff claimed adoption of the trademark HAPPILO DATE BITES in December 2022. After the defendant filed its written statement claiming prior use from 2017, the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to introduce the fact that its predecessor had been using the mark DATE BITES since September 2016. The Commercial Court allowed the amendment, observing that the trial had not commenced, the amendment did not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action, and it was necessary to determine the real controversy regarding prior user. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the amendment fundamentally altered the pleading by setting up a new case, was mala fide after the written statement, and caused serious prejudice. The petitioner relied on Mohammadrafi and another Vs. Bandenawaz and others and Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders, Pvt. Ltd. and others. The High Court formulated the issue as whether the trial judge was justified in allowing the amendment. The court began discussing Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the principle that procedural law facilitates justice, but the judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the final decision.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court examined whether an amendment to change the date of prior use of a trademark from 2022 to 2016 in a passing off suit fundamentally altered the nature of the suit - The petitioner contended that it introduced a new case and caused prejudice; the trial court allowed it, noting that trial had not commenced and the amendment was necessary to determine prior use - However, the writ petition was filed challenging this order. (Paras 2-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned trial judge is justified in allowing the amendment of the plaint filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Law Points
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- amendment of pleadings
- procedural law facilitates justice
- pleadings define scope of controversy
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (07) 94
WRIT PETITION NO.21567 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti
Sri. J Sai Deepak, Senior Counsel for Sri. Arjun Rao, Advocate (for petitioner); Not mentioned (for respondent)
Connedit Business Solutions Private Limited
Happilo International Private Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order allowing amendment of plaint in a commercial suit for passing off.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of the order dated 08.06.2026 passed by the Commercial Court allowing the respondent's application for amendment of the plaint.
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that the amendment fundamentally altered the nature of the suit and caused prejudice.
Previous Decisions
The XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, by order dated 08.06.2026 in Commercial O.S.No.281/2025, allowed the plaintiff's application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Issues
Whether the learned trial judge is justified in allowing the amendment of the plaint filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the amendment changes the cause of action from adoption in 2022 to prior use from 2016, setting up a new case after the written statement, and is mala fide and prejudicial.
Petitioner relied on Mohammadrafi and another Vs. Bandenawaz and others and Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders, Pvt. Ltd. and others to contend that such an amendment is impermissible.
Petitioner submitted that the amendment does not clarify or elaborate existing facts but introduces an entirely new inconsistent case.
The Commercial Court (trial court) allowed the amendment observing that trial had not commenced, the amendment did not change the nature of the suit, and it was necessary to determine the real controversy regarding prior user.
Ratio Decidendi
Order VI Rule 17 CPC embodies the principle that procedural law is intended to facilitate the administration of justice. Pleadings are meant to define the scope of controversy... (incomplete). The court was examining whether the trial judge was justified in allowing the amendment, but the final ratio is not available in the provided text.
Judgment Excerpts
The Commercial Court, by the impugned order, had allowed the application. While allowing the application, the Court has observed that the plaintiff is seeking permission to amend their pleadings in the plaint to insert the facts that their predecessor was using the trademark, DATE BITES from the year 2016.
The Court observed that the amendment of the plaint pleading by the plaintiff does not establish any facts other than the facts established during the trial in accordance with the provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023.
Order VI Rule 17 CPC embodies the principle that procedural law is intended to facilitate the administration of justice. Pleadings are meant to define the scope of controversy...
Procedural History
The respondent/plaintiff filed Commercial O.S.No.281/2025 before the Commercial Court for passing off and damages. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement claiming prior use from 2017. The plaintiff then filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment to introduce prior use from 2016. The Commercial Court allowed the amendment on 08.06.2026. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VI Rule 17, Section 151
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023:
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
