ANAND TOMAR vs POOJA ELECTRIC CO. & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) (COMM) 203/2025 & CM APPL. 78491/2025 ANAND TOMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Mukesh M. Goel, Adv. versus POOJA ELECTRIC CO. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikas Khera, Ms. Sneha Sethia, Mr. Yash Sharma and Mr. Jatin Gautam, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA O R D E R (ORAL) % 15.12.2025 C.HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 25 September 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in IA No. 3702/2025, filed by the respondent, as the plaintiff. The appellant is the defendant before the learned Single Judge. 2. The impugned order reads thus: “I.A. 3702/2025 (for amendment of the plaint) 1. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), read with Section 151 CPC, for amendment of the plaint. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the issues in this suit have been framed on 18.12.2024. However, subsequently, on 14.01.2025, the plaintiff’s trademark application nos. 2990322, 3382660 and 2990321 were allowed and granted registration. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI FAO(OS) (COMM) 203/2025 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:18.12.2025 11:17:14 2.1 She states that the full disclosure of the pendency of these applications was already made in the original plaint. She states that by way of the proposed amendment, the plaintiff is only seeking leave to bring the factum of the subsequent registration of these trademark applications on record. 2.2 She states that the registration certificates have been annexed with this application as Document-B. 3. She states that despite several opportunities, the defendant has not filed any response to this application. 4. Le