Fact
This case involves a legal battle over trademarks between Pooja Electric Co., which is the plaintiff, and Anand Tomar, who runs a business called Pooja Rading Company, as the defendant. The plaintiff is a company dealing in electrical goods and has claimed rights over certain trademarks related to its business. The main suit was filed to protect these trademarks from being used by the defendant in a way that could confuse customers or harm the plaintiff’s reputation.
The plaintiff had applied for registration of three specific trademarks with numbers 2990322, 3382660, and 2990321 before starting the lawsuit. These applications were still pending when the suit began, and the plaintiff had already mentioned this fact in the original complaint, known as the plaint. After the court had gone through the initial stages and set the main issues for trial on December 18, 2024, something new happened.
On January 14, 2025, the trademark office approved and granted registration for these three trademarks. This meant the plaintiff now had official certificates proving ownership of these marks. Wanting to update the court about this development, the plaintiff filed a request to change the plaint to include this new information. The defendant opposed this request, but did not file any written reply despite getting chances to do so. The court had to decide whether to allow this change at this stage of the case.
Procedural Detail
The main lawsuit, numbered CS(COMM) 517/2023, was filed by Pooja Electric Co. against Anand Tomar under the laws protecting trademarks. Along with the suit, there were other related requests, like I.A. 14153/2023, but the key one here is I.A. 3702/2025, which is the application for amending the plaint.
This application was made under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is a rule that allows parties to correct or update their written statements in a lawsuit if needed, and also under Section 151 of the same code, which gives the court general power to do what is fair.
Dispute
The main disagreement in this particular application was whether the plaintiff should be allowed to update the plaint to mention the new trademark registrations that were granted after the issues in the case had already been decided.
The plaintiff argued that this was just a simple update to reflect the current reality, since the pending applications were already disclosed in the original plaint, and now they had become registered. This would help strengthen their case without changing the basic facts. The defendant, on the other hand, opposed the idea, though without explaining why in writing. The broader dispute in the suit is about trademark infringement, where the plaintiff claims the defendant is using similar names or marks that could mislead people into thinking the defendant’s products are connected to the plaintiff’s business. But for this application, the focus was narrow: is it okay to add this new fact about registrations without a full rewrite of the plaint, especially since the trial stage had started?
Reasoning
The court starts by looking at the rules under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which says that a party can ask to amend their plaint at any time, but after the trial begins, the court can only allow it if the change is needed to settle the real issues and if the party could not have known about it earlier despite trying hard.
Here, the registrations happened after the issues were framed, so it was a new event that the plaintiff could not have included before. The court agreed that the basic facts about the trademark applications were already in the original plaint, so there was no need to rewrite everything.
Instead, it allowed the plaintiff to just add the registration certificates to the record as Document-B and use them when presenting evidence. This way, the case can move forward without delay. The court also considered the stage of the suit, noting that issues were framed but evidence had not started yet, so this update would not unfairly surprise the defendant. It pointed out that the defendant did not file a reply, which weakened their opposition. Overall, the court used its power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to do what is just, keeping all arguments about the main dispute open for later.
Decision
The court allowed the plaintiff’s application in part. It permitted the registration certificates to be placed on record as Document-B, and the plaintiff can use them during evidence. However, it said there is no need to actually amend the plaint because the key facts about the applications were already there. The application was disposed of with these directions, and the defendant’s rights to argue on the main issues remain open. For the main suit, the plaintiff must file affidavits of all witnesses within four weeks, and the case is listed before the Joint Registrar on November 21, 2025, to fix dates for evidence.
Case Details
- Case Title: Pooja Electric Co. Vs. Anand Tomar Trading as Pooja Rading Company
- Order Date: September 25, 2025
- Case Number: CS(COMM) 517/2023
- Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
- Name of Hon’ble Judge: Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Disclaimer
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
