Dismissed

Aspiration Media Private Limited v. Murali Mohan Ravi

Telangana HC6 Nov 2020CRP/667/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's order allowing an amendment to the plaint. The amendment changed the cause of action from passing off to trademark infringement because the trademark was subsequently registered. The Court held the amendment was necessary for just determination and caused no prejudice.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Aspiration Media Private Limited Vs Murali… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

H,GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE I u. o rw o rH-osrilll, Bil, B !#Eiliy

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION P ETITION NO: 667 0F 2019

¶7

Petition under section.227 0f the constitution of rndia, aggrieved by the order dated 11022019 passed rn r.A No 1100;iro;;;; o.S No 642 of 20i3 on rhe rire of the X Additionl Chief Judge, CiiV Ci"if C"r-rt""t"HyO"rrOrA.

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 ASPIRATION tVEDtA pRlVATtr_ LtMITED, 6-3_680/4/8, 4th Floor, Thakur IVansion Lane. Near Somaiiguda Circle, panjagutta, lvOeranaa. nnOiia p;r;;;l -500 082. Administrative 6"ff,c" "i_H^{No" tillisi)Bzir, prot B-3s, Firm Naoar} cooperarive Housing sociery Ltd., ritmnJs-r, .Ju-bli* Hirr.. iivi"iJoJir irio6Si Andhra Pradesh. lnd'ia

¶10

2 Avva Puspa Lathr, tt/anaging Director, H.No. 8-2-293l B2tFtBl17. Film Naoar. JuDrree Htils, Hyderabad -500 033, Andhra pradesh, lndia.

¶11

...PETITIONERS/DEFENDANT NO.1 and 2

¶12

AND

¶13

IVURALI TVOHAN RAVI, H.No. 1-6212tAt46, ptot No.46, Cyber Hiils, Guttata Begumpet, Near Kavuri Hills, Hyderabad- 081.

¶14

,..RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶15

Sitaramarao Avva,, Director, 23-35-39, A.S.Rao Street, Lakshmi Nagar, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, 52001 1, Andhra Pradesh, lndia.

¶16

Kodali Venkateswara Rao,, Director, 80302321501C154, Shravanthi Nagar, Venkatagiri, Yousufguda Post, Hyderabad -500045, Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad.

¶17

Swathi Kodali, Director,, 3-4-67B, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad 500029, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, India. ( Respondents 2 to 4 are not necessary parties in this petition) ...RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANT NO.3 to 5

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay order^passed in lA No.^'l of 2019 in CRP No. 667 ol 2019 dated 181 1-2019.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To stay all further proceedings in OS.NO.64212013 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad during the pendency of the above CRP.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. S.V.S.S.SlVA RAM

¶23

Counsel lbr thc ll.cspondent No l: sRI. ASHoK RAM KUMAR

¶24

Counsel for the Rcspondent No.2 to 4: 1.'one appcarccl

¶25

Thc Court mldc the follo,'r'ing: ORDER

¶26

THE HONOURABLE^{JUSTICE C' SRI DhVl} CIVIL R^{EVISION PETITION No.6 67of 2019}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Aggrieved by the^{orcler, dated 11'02'2079' passeclin} 1.A.No.1100 of^{2018 in OS.No.642 of 2013 on thc' file of the} X-Additional Chief Judge,^{City Civil Court, Hyderabacl, whereinan} application filed by^{the 1't respondent/plaintiff, under OrderVl} Rule 17 of C.P.C., seeking amendment^{of plaint bv inscrtir.rgtl.re'} worcl^{'infringement'} before the word'passing off^{trac'lc rnark' ilr the} respective paragraphs of the plairrt ancl also in tl-re Fraver Fortiurr, n,as allorvetl, the present Civil Revisiorr I)etition is iiletl bv the petitioners/ rlr'fenrlants^-l antl 2 urrtlt'r Articlr' 227 oi thc Constitu Liott of lr.rdia,

¶29

'I'he brir.f facts ol the r:ase aro LhzrL thc l'1 rcsPontiL.nt/pl.rintill filecl O.S.No.642 of 2073 for perpetual injunctiorr lestrair.ring passing off h'ade mark, damages, renclitior-r of accounts etc. During pendency of the suit, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.1100 ol 2018 seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that alter filing of the suit, the trade mark i.e.,^"Tollywood" has been registerecl with the Government of Inclia rvith cffect from 24.0.,l .2013 arrcl valicJ up lo 24.U1 .2023. ln view of getting al registcrcrl tracle nr;rrk, thc 1't responclent/ p-r lain tif f b1' n'av of this arnt'nrlnrc'nt seeks injunctior-r against the tlcftnrlants in tht, suit rcstrainirrl; inlrir.rrlt,rle nt ol tht' sairl rc.gisterc.cl traclemark. The rt:s pontlen ts/ rlc[e ntl an ts Iilt:r'l

¶30

¶31

counter contencling that the applicationseeking amendmenr oF rhe plaini has been filed af the stage of triar and as such the said applica tion IS mrsconceived and misconstrued and prayed to cl isrr-t iss the saicj applicatior-r

¶32

Afk,r corrsidering the rival submissions utacle by, the Iearr_recl Courrscl on cither side, tl-re learned X_Adclitiorral Chief Juc.lge, City Civil Court, I Ir.cle.rab..rd, allon,ed the saicl l.A.No.ll00 of 201S. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision l,etition has been filed by the prelili6ns15/ clefendant Nos.1 ancl 2.

¶33

On 09.09.2020 and or-r 08.10.2020 learned Cour.rsel for the petitioners is absent. Since I.A.No.1, of 2020 is filed by the 1.t respondent/ plain tiff to vacate the irrterim stay granted earlier by this Court, heard learned Counsel for the 1sl responcient/ plaintif f ancl perusecl the record.

¶34

fhe grouncls raiseci bv the pe ti tioners/ clefend a rrts 1 ancl 2 in thc revision petitior-r that the suit is of the vear'2013 anc'l it is conrrr-rg up for trial arrcl as such the amendment aprplication filed bt, the 1.t ltsporrcie'nt/plaintiff canr-rot l,e maintainable at tlris belated stage. It is statccl that tl-rc 1\r resfron(lt: n t/ pla irrtif f has r-tot filecl arrl' clocuttrct.tt in su1-rport of the alleged claim i.e., change in the trademark status and even the date from which such change has come irrto effect^is not forthcoming. lt is further stated that the suit for infringement of a lrademark is totally different from a suit for passing off. It is

¶35

¶36

further^{stated that if the amendment is allowecl'the natureof the} suit itself^{is attered and thereforethe amenclmentof plaintcannotbe} permitted.

¶37

Learned^{Counsel for the 1't respondent/plaintiffwould} submit that^{the trial Court has rightly allowedthe applicationas the} proposed amenclment^{is necessaryfor} iust^{and final detelmination} of the controversy^{between the parties He further subrnits that rro} prejurlicc lloulcl be^{causec-l to the tlc.fenrlar-rLs if the atntn,.lmcnt is} o r L'le re(l

¶38

Before proceeding further it would^{be appropriateto referto} Order VI Rule 17 of C.P,C., n,hich rcacls as untler

¶39

"17. Amendment of pleadir-rgs. The Court rnav at anv stago ol the proceedings allow either partv to alter or ar-nenrl his pleadings in such manner ancl on suclt tcrrns as mav bt just, and all such amenciments shall be made as mav be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy betr,veen the parties.

¶40

Providerl that no application for amenclmr:nt shall be allon,cd after the trial has commenced, unless the Court courts to the conclusion that in spite of clue rliligcncc, the partv couLl not have raised the matter beforc the colnlnencentcnt of trial."

¶41

ln Reaniectu Btrildcrs nrtd Dez'elopers t, Nontyrttt(tstrtttttq tttl sorts ntrd ofllef-srthe Apex Cor-rrt, after analvsing criticallv thc l-roint in issuc, c{eciucttcl tl-rc follox,ing basic plinciples to bc takt,rr irrto

¶42

'^{(2009)to scc s,l}

¶43

¶44

consicleration bv the Courts while allowing or rejecting ti-re

¶45

application f or amendment:

¶46

1. Whether the amendmcnt sought is imperative for proper arrcl cffective acljudication of the case?

¶47

1. \4,lrether the application for amendmen t ts bonn ftde or ntaln ftde ?

¶48

1. I hc ame:rdmcnt should not cause such prejudice to thc otl'ror sicle w,hich cannot be compensatecl adcquatelt, it.r tcrms of rlrone,;

¶49

-1) Rcfusing arnertclmeirt u'ouk1 in fact leacl to injustice or io.r cl lcr nrultiplc litigation;

¶50

1. Whethor the proposecl arnendmcnt constitutionallv or' f u nrlar.ncntallv changes the natul'e and character of the casei and

¶51

1. As a general rule, the Court should decline amendment if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred bv limitation on the date of application.

¶52

Furtlrer in P.A.Jayalakshmi a. H.Saradha and others2, while dealing with Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. the Apex Court held that it is the prirnarv duty of the Court to decide as to 'vhether such an anrcnclr.r-rcr-rt is r-rtcessarl to clecicle the rcal dispute betlr,een the partics. Only if such a condition is fulfillecl, the amendme'nt is to^lre allor,r,erl. IIou,cvcr, proviso aPpendecl to Orcler VI Rule^{17 of C.P.C} re.sh'icts thc pou,er of the Court. It Pu15 6n ernbargo^{on exercise of} its jurisdiction,

¶53

I 1:oooy r,t scc sl:

¶54

)

¶55

ln the instant case, the claim of^{the 1'r responclc'nt/plaintiff is} that after filing of the suit, the trade^{mark i.e., "Tollywood"has been} registered with the Government of India and as such the^1't respondent/ plaintiff has been seeking injunction against^the defendants restraining infringement of registered h'aclet-nark.^I he trial Court helcl that the proposed amenclment is necessarv for^jr.rst anrl final cletermination of the controversv Lretrvten lhe parties as it n,ill not changc the nature of the suit.

¶56

ln view, of the lar.r, laicl clon,n in the juclgmt-nts rclerretl to .rbove ancl sincc lhe trial is not vet comlllL.ncod in thr. abovt'sr,rit anri that the proposed amendment will not cause any prejuclice to thc c-lefendants, this Court finc-ls no reason to interfere with thc. orrler passed by the trial Court.

¶57

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There

¶58

shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pencling shall stanr'l closec'I.

¶60

SD/- N. CHANDRASEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGIS

¶61

,TRUE COPY//

¶62

SECTION OFFICER