Pooja Electric Co., the plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit before the Single Judge of Delhi High Court, filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint by incorporating the fact of subsequent registration of three trademark applications that were already disclosed as pending in the original plaint. The Single Judge, by order dated 25 September 2025, allowed the plaintiff to bring the registration certificates on record for reliance during evidence without requiring formal amendment of the plaint, as all material facts were already present. The defendant Anand Tomar challenged this order by way of appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Division Bench held that the appeal was not maintainable as orders on applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC are not appealable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act read with Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC, and dismissed the appeal without examining merits.
An order allowing or rejecting an application for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not appealable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC (Paras 3-4, 7-8).
Case Title: Anand Tomar Vs. Pooja Electric Co.
Order Date: December 15, 2025
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 203/2025 & CM APPL. 78491/2025
Neutral Citation: Not available in the order
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Judge: C. Hari Shankar, J. and Om Prakash Shukla, J.
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
