Appeal against a single judge's order allowing the plaintiff to place on record trademark registration certificates and declining plaint amendment. The Division Bench held such an order is not amenable to appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act with Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~60
versus
POOJA ELECTRIC CO. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikas Khera, Ms. Sneha Sethia, Mr. Yash Sharma and Mr. Jatin Gautam, Advs.
CORAM:
HO�'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHA�KAR HO�'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
O R D E R (ORAL) % 15.12.2025
C.HARI SHA�KAR, 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)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PREETI FAO(OS) (COMM) 203/2025 Signing Date:18.12.2025 11:17:14
Page 1 of 3
3. Mr. Vikas Khera, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, advances a preliminary objection to the effect that this appeal is not maintainable, as an order on an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 is not amenable to challenge under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 20152 read with Order XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC.
4. On a reading of Section 13 of the CC Act read with Order XLIII
1 “CPC”, hereinafter
2 “CC Act”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PREETI FAO(OS) (COMM) 203/2025 Signing Date:18.12.2025 11:17:14
Page 2 of 3
Rule 1 of the CPC, we find this position to be correct.
5. The only submission of Mr. Mukesh M. Goyal, learned Counsel for the appellant, by way of response, is that if this view is adopted, the appellant would be rendered remediless.
6. We are not sure that this submission is correct.
7. Nonetheless, it is not for us to express any view thereon as it is clear that the present appeal does not lie under Section 13 of the CC Act read with Order XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC.
8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable, without entering into merits.
C.HARI SHA�KAR, J
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
DECEMBER 15, 2025/ gunn
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PREETI FAO(OS) (COMM) 203/2025 Signing Date:18.12.2025 11:17:14
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an order on an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is appealable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act read with Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Anand Tomar
Pooja Electric Co.
C. Hari Shankar
Om Prakash Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
