The case concerns a petition challenging the dismissal of an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The petitioners sought to amend the valuation of their suit from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 200 crores, citing revelations of the defendant's turnover during the proceedings. The rejection of this amendment formed the focal point of the dispute.

• Background: This litigation arose out of disputes concerning a joint venture agreement dated May 9, 1987, and a subsequent Foreign Collaboration Agreement dated February 20, 1990. The suit initially filed in the High Court of Delhi was transferred to the District Court due to changes in pecuniary jurisdiction. The petitioners claimed a permanent injunction and rendition of accounts, initially valuing the relief at Rs. 1 lakh. During the proceedings, the petitioners discovered the respondent's turnover and sought to revise the suit's valuation to Rs. 200 crores, asserting that it was essential for justice.
• Original Filing:
  • Suit filed: for injunction and rendition of accounts.
  • Valuation: Rs. 1 lakh.
  • Venue: Transferred to the District Court in 2016.
  • Amendment Application: Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, petitioners sought to amend the valuation based on evidence suggesting the respondent's turnover exceeded Rs. 1000 crores. Proposed valuation: Rs. 200 crores.
  • Justification: 20% commission on the turnover as compensation.
• Dismissal by Trial Court: Application dismissed due to delay (16 years since knowledge of turnover figures). Lack of due diligence and timing (application filed after final arguments commenced).
• Legal Precedents Cited: Petitioners relied on
  • Lakha Ram Sharma vs. Balar Marketing Ltd.
  • Mount Mary Enterprises vs. Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd.
  to argue that amendments to correct valuation are permissible, even if they shift jurisdiction.
   
• Issues Raised:
  • Whether the petitioners demonstrated due diligence in seeking the amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC?
  • Can the valuation of a suit be amended at a belated stage, particularly after final arguments have begun?
  • Does the proposed amendment alter the nature of the suit or prejudice the respondents?
     
• Petitioner Submission:
  • Asserted that the amendment was necessary for the suit's proper adjudication.
  • Cited affidavit evidence showing respondent's turnover and argued for a just valuation.
  • Emphasized that courts must adopt a liberal approach to amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
  • Argued that rejection based solely on a jurisdictional shift is impermissible.
  • Relied on judgments, including:
    • Lakha Ram Sharma vs. Balar Marketing Ltd., (2008) 17 SCC 671.
    • Mount Mary Enterprises vs. Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd., (2015) 4 SCC 182.
       
• Respondent Submission:
  • Opposed the amendment as belated and lacking due diligence.
  • Argued that the turnover figures were available since 2008.
  • Contended that amendments after final arguments would disrupt proceedings.
  • Highlighted judgments such as:
    • Basavaraj vs. Indira, (2024) SCC Online SC 208.
    • South Konkan Distilleries vs. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik, (2008) 14 SCC 632.
       
• Judgment:
  • Court's Findings: The trial court's dismissal was upheld. The petitioners failed to justify the 16-year delay in seeking amendment despite having access to the turnover figures since 2008. The proposed amendment, if allowed, would disrupt proceedings after extensive final arguments (26 dates). The amendment was not essential for resolving the real controversy as the valuation did not affect the substantive relief sought.
     
  • Legal Reasoning: Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, amendments are permissible if:
    • They are necessary for adjudicating real controversies.
    • Due diligence is demonstrated.
    • No undue prejudice is caused to the opposing party.
    The Court emphasized the 2002 amendment's proviso requiring diligence, which was absent in this case.
     
• Judgments Referred:
  • Lakha Ram Sharma vs. Balar Marketing Ltd. (Liberal approach to valuation amendments unless mala fide).
  • Mount Mary Enterprises vs. Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd. (Valuation amendments should not be denied solely due to jurisdictional shifts).
  • M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma (2002 CPC amendment introduced stricter diligence requirements).
     
• Provisions of Law Discussed:
  • Order 6 Rule 17 CPC: Governing amendment of pleadings.
  • Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC: Restricts amendments post-commencement of trial unless due diligence is shown.
  • Pecuniary Jurisdiction: Relevant to the jurisdictional implications of valuation changes.
     
• Analysis: The judgment reinforces the principle that amendments, especially post-trial, require strict scrutiny. Petitioners failed the diligence test, rendering their reliance on precedents misplaced. The respondents successfully demonstrated procedural prejudice and delay. The Court struck a balance between procedural integrity and substantive justice, favoring the former in this instance.

Decision:
The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the trial court's order. No costs were imposed.

Concluding Note:
This case underscores the significance of procedural diligence and timeliness in seeking amendments. The judiciary's cautious approach ensures that amendments do not become a tool for delay or jurisdictional manipulation.

Case Details:
Case Title: Usha Drager Private Ltd & Anr. vs Draegerwerk Aktiengesellschaft & Ors.
Date of Order: January 14, 2025.
Case No.: CM(M) 2296/2024.
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:368
Court: High Court of Delhi.
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja.

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539