"The case of Puja Agarwal v. Pravesh Narula before the Delhi High Court involved a challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to an order permitting amendment of a plaint in a commercial intellectual property suit. The dispute centers on whether the inclusion of a trademark infringement plea—post-registration of the trademark during the pendency of the suit—amounts to a change in the nature of the original suit, which had been filed solely for copyright infringement.

Factual Background:
The respondent/plaintiff, Pravesh Narula, originally filed CS (COMM) No. 2732/2021 seeking relief in respect of copyright infringement involving a logo bearing the term "RD SPECIAL." At the time the suit was instituted, the plaintiff had applied for registration of the said mark but the registration had not yet been granted. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff detailed the adoption of the trademark/logo "RD SPECIAL" in 1994 and disclosed the pendency of his trademark application under No. 4242962 in Class 25 for goods including socks.

There were no specific pleadings or reliefs sought in the original plaint with regard to trademark infringement or passing off. The suit was limited to copyright infringement based on the alleged unauthorized use of the logo/artistic work by the defendant.

Subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, the trademark registration was granted in favour of the plaintiff. On the basis of this new development, the plaintiff moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the plaint and include a plea of trademark infringement.

Procedural Background: The application seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Courts-08), Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi on 7th April 2025. The amendment was allowed primarily on the ground that the trademark registration had been obtained during the pendency of the suit, and that it was therefore appropriate to allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint accordingly.

The petitioner/defendant, Puja Agarwal, challenged the said order before the Delhi High Court under Article 227. The primary contention was that the amendment effectively altered the nature and character of the original suit from one of copyright infringement to a combined suit including trademark infringement, which was not permissible.

Issues Involved in the Case :The key issue for determination before the Delhi High Court was whether the amendment of the plaint to include a plea of trademark infringement—based on a trademark registration granted after the institution of the suit—amounted to a change in the nature of the suit that ought not to have been allowed.

A related issue was whether the Court below had erred by passing a cryptic order that failed to consider the objections of the defendant/petitioner regarding the impermissibility of the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

Submissions of the Parties:
The petitioner/defendant contended that the Trial Court's order was cryptic and lacked proper reasoning. It was argued that the amendment fundamentally altered the character of the suit from a copyright action to a trademark infringement suit, which should not have been allowed at such a stage, particularly when it was not pleaded in the original suit.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the only change being introduced by way of amendment was with reference to the newly obtained trademark registration. It was contended that the plaint already contained factual averments regarding adoption and use of the "RD SPECIAL" logo and the pending application for registration. Therefore, the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but merely expanded the legal grounds of relief flowing from the same set of facts.

Judgments Cited and Their Context:
The respondent/plaintiff relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi, (2006) 4 SCC 385. In this judgment, the Supreme Court discussed the two limbs of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The first part gives discretion to the court to allow amendments, and the second part mandates that amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy should be allowed.

The Supreme Court observed that if a cause of action arises during the pendency of a suit, an amendment should be allowed so long as it does not change the fundamental structure of the suit. In that case, it was held that amendments introducing new reliefs based on subsequent events could be permitted if they arose from the same core controversy. The Court emphasized that multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided, and procedural law must serve the ends of justice.

Applying this precedent, the respondent argued that since trademark infringement is a continuing cause of action, and since the factual matrix remained the same, the amendment should be viewed as legally permissible.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:
Delhi High Court agreed that the order passed by the Trial Court was indeed cryptic and did not deal with the specific submission that the amendment altered the nature of the suit. However, he proceeded to evaluate the merits of the amendment independently.

Upon review of the original plaint, the court noted that the plaintiff had included factual details about the adoption and use of the mark "RD SPECIAL," and also disclosed that a trademark registration application was pending. Nevertheless, no relief was originally claimed under trademark law—neither under the head of infringement nor passing off.

The Court acknowledged that the registration was granted only after the suit was filed and that the new amendment sought to introduce trademark infringement as a legal cause of action based on this registration. However, given that trademark infringement is a continuing cause of action, and the suit was still at a preliminary stage (issues yet to be framed), there was no legal bar to the plaintiff instituting a fresh suit on this new basis.

Instead of encouraging multiplicity of proceedings, the Court reasoned that it was preferable to allow the amendment. The guiding principle applied was whether the amendment was necessary to resolve the real dispute between the parties. The amendment, in the Court's view, did not radically alter the structure of the original suit, but merely added a legal claim arising from subsequent registration of an already pleaded mark.

Court emphasized that allowing such amendments is consistent with the liberal approach favoured by courts, especially when the amendment is grounded in events occurring after the suit's institution and does not prejudice the opposite party, who retains the right to raise all defences in response to the amended plaint.

Final Decision:
The Delhi High Court upheld the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the amendment. The Court clarified that by permitting the amendment, it had not gone into the merits of the case. The petitioner/defendant was given full liberty to raise all relevant defences in the written statement to the amended plaint.The petition under Article 227 was accordingly dismissed and disposed of.

Law Settled in this Case:
The judgment reinforces the principle that amendments under Order VI Rule 17 CPC should be liberally granted when they are based on subsequent events and necessary for adjudicating the real dispute. The case affirms that introduction of trademark infringement relief—based on post-suit registration—does not necessarily alter the nature of a suit if the foundational facts remain consistent and if the suit is still at an early stage. It also underscores the continuing nature of causes of action in intellectual property law, especially trademark infringement, and reiterates judicial aversion to multiplicity of proceedings where a more efficient procedural route is available.

Case Title: Puja Agarwal Vs. Pravesh Narula
Date of Order: 5th May, 2025
Case No.: CM(M)-IPD 14/2025 and CM 111/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:3800
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

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
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539