The respondent filed a commercial suit for recovery of money against Raj Power Projects, initially naming Tarun Sehgal as its proprietor. The written statement was, however, filed by Amit Bansal, the actual proprietor. The respondent thereafter amended the memo of parties to substitute Amit Bansal as proprietor and sought amendment of paragraph 3 of the plaint accordingly. The Commercial Court allowed the amendment, holding it did not alter the cause of action or nature of the suit. Amit Bansal challenged the order under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the amendment was barred after commencement of trial, altered the cause of action, and was time-barred. The High Court held that the trial had not commenced when the amendment application was filed, that the change was a mere correction of the name of the proprietor without altering the cause of action, and that there was no prejudice to the petitioner. Finding the petition vexatious, the Court dismissed it with costs of Rs. 50,000 to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
