The court always views both parties equally and defends the right to assert their point of view and stance equally. This was held in the judgment passed by a single judge bench comprising HON’BLE JUSTICE C .HARI SHANKAR, in the matter BEIERSDORF AG V. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, dealt with an issue where the petitioner has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to amend paras 38 and 43 of the plaint in the present and to add documents, relevant to the averments contained in the amended paragraphs.
Counsel for the defendant, seriously objected to the present application on the ground that it was in the nature of an oblique attempt to introduce, into the proceedings, additional documents, in clear transgression of Order XI Rule 1(2) & 1(5) of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. He also submitted that the documents which have been now sought to be introduced under cover of this application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC were within the possession of the plaintiff at the time when the suit was filed. Additionally, he submits that the facts which are now sought to be introduced by way of the amendment were also facts, which were known to the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit.
Counsel for the plaintiff, contested these submissions of defendant. He submits that the documents, which are being introduced along with the present application, were not in the custody of the plaintiff at the time when the suit was filed and have come into the plaintiff’s possession only thereafter. He submitted that this Court had, vide its order dated 5th July, 2021, allowed and granted the plaintiff four weeks’ time to place additional documents on record, subject to the right of the defendant to admit or deny the said documents. He submitted that the documents have been filed within the said period of four weeks and that, therefore, there can be no justifiable objection to their being taken on record.
After hearing both the parties The hon’ble Delhi High court allowed the petition and held that a perusal of the averments, which are sought to be introduced by way of the present amendment, vis-a-vis those which are already contained in the plaint, indicates that no fresh cause of action is sought to be pleaded and that the amendment cannot be treated as an attempt to overcome an objection which has been taken by the defendant in the written statement, as no written statement has been filed till date. It also held that, In this view of the matter, there is no justifiable reason to refuse the prayer for amendment as contained in the present application.