Law does not permit anyone to take advantage of the procedure and delay the justice dispensation mechanism. The courts have on numerous instances observed that procedure cannot be exploited to circumvent the provisions of statutory law and dilate the proceedings. In a recent case, the Delhi High Court reiterated the same opinion.1
The controversy was in respect of the design of a pressure cooker. The defendant filed an affidavit regarding the existence of registration of the design of the pressure cooker in his favour in 2003, which the court allowed to be taken on record. Following this affidavit, the plaintiff amended the plaint to address the issue of registration. Defendant was given time for filing a written statement in response to the amended plaint but he did not file the amended written statement. Later in 2007, the defendant moved an application for amending the written statement for rejection of the plaint as being non- maintainable against the registered proprietor of the design and stating that some new facts had come in his knowledge. The defendant wanted to add two more preliminary objections. The court disallowed this and observed "Amendment to the pleadings can be allowed by court only if the same is necessary for the adjudication of the controversy between the parties or if there are such subsequent facts which are necessary to be brought on record by way of amendment alone". The very fact of defendant not moving for amendment of written statement for four years displays disinterest in amending his written statement and an attempt to prolong the court proceedings.
Even after being the given the opportunity to amend his written statement within 30 days of amendment of the plaint, the defendant did not utilize it. The court maintained that if the defendant had been really interested in amending the written statement, he would have filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code, in 2003 only. The registration of the design would have been valid evidence at that time itself and the defendant cannot state that as a new fact to and file for amendment of the written statement on that basis. All the amendments sought to be made by the defendant were in effect, expansion of the earlier paragraphs and statements. It was clear that the defendant was acting in a manner to dilate the litigation and dispel the court from deciding the main issue. On the basis of the above grounds the court dismissed the defendant's application and imposed a fine of ten thousand rupees.
Footnote
1. Hawkins Cookers Limited v. Citizen Metal Industries (India) 2007 (35) PTC 802 (Del)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
