Delhi High Court
Travellers Exchange Corporation ... vs Celebrities Management Private ... on 25 April, 2018
$~CS-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 25th APRIL, 2018
+ CS (COMM) 51/2016 & IA Nos.1110/2016 (u/O 39 R-1 & 2
CPC), 5793/2016 (u/O 7 R-10 CPC), 1152/17 (u/S 124 of the
Trade Marks Act)
TRAVELLERS EXCHANGE CORPORATION LIMITED &
ORS. ..... Plaintiffs
Through : Mr.Sidhant Goel, Advocate with
Mr.Bhardwaj Jaishankar, Advocate.
versus
CELEBRITIES MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED
..... Defendant
Through : Mr.Abhishek Puri, Advocate with
Mr.V.Siddharth, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)
Review Petition 62/2018
1. The defendant / applicant seeks review of the order dated
07.12.2017 by which IA No.12078/2016 [u/O XI R-1(5) CPC] and IA
Nos.5793/2016 (u/O VII R-10 CPC and 8144/2016 (u/O VI R-17
CPC) were dealt with. The review petition is contested by the
plaintiffs / non-applicants.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. On 06.09.2017, the case was received on transfer
and matter was listed for disposal of all pending IAs for 09.11.2017.
On that day, after hearing arguments in IA Nos.5793/2016 (u/O VII R-
10 CPC), 8144/2016 (u/O VI R-17 CPC) and 12078/2016 [u/O XI R-
1(5) CPC], the matter was notified for orders on 22.11.2017. On that
day, it was renotified for 07.12.2017. On 07.12.2017, all the above
IAs were dealt with.
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is
that arguments were addressed only in IA No.5793/2016 (u/O VII R-
10 CPC). It was further urged that learned counsel for the plaintiffs
had orally submitted that he would not press IA No. 8144/2016 (u/O
VI R-17 CPC) till disposal of IA No.5793/2016 (u/O VII R-10 CPC).
4. In response, the plaintiffs have denied the assertions of
the defendant and stated that arguments on all these applications were
heard and there is no reason to review the order in question. The
defendant cannot be permitted to reagitate the issues or to file appeal
in the guise of a review petition.
5. Indisputably, number of IAs including IA Nos.
1110/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1 & 2 CPC) and 1152/17 (u/S 124 of the
Trade Marks Act) were pending disposal on 09.11.2017. With the
consent of the parties, however, arguments only in the three IAs
referred above were heard and the matter was listed for orders.
Arguments in the other IA Nos. 1110/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1 & 2
CPC) and 1152/17 (u/S 124 of the Trade Marks Act) were not heard
that day.
6. The order-sheets are very clear and specific. It is
specifically noted in the order-sheet dated 09.11.2017 that arguments
were heard on the above referred IAs. These IAs came to be disposed
of by the order under review.
7. This Court finds no valid reasons to review the order as
nothing is on record to infer if arguments were not heard in IA No.
8144/2016 (u/O VI R-17 CPC) or the plaintiffs' counsel had submitted
not to address arguments till the disposal of the IA No.5793/2016 (u/O
VII R-10 CPC).
8. All the relevant contentions of the parties have been
taken into consideration in order under review. Relying upon a recent
judgment 'Subhashini Malik vs. S.K.Gandhi & Ors.' [CS(OS)
No.1416/2009] of Full Bench of this Court, it was noted that an
application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC moved for amendment of a
plaint to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court
can be considered.
9. I remember that at the time of pronouncement of the
order under review it was specifically enquired by the learned counsel
for the defendant if IA No.5793/2016 (u/O VII R-10 CPC) has also
been decided. It was specifically informed to him that IA
No.5793/2016 (u/O VII R-10 CPC) has been kept pending to be listed
for disposal before the Roster Bench.
10. Contention of the defendant that the application under
Order VII R-10 CPC was to be decided first before considering the
application VI R-17 CPC is devoid of merit. If this plea is considered,
return of the plaint order (if any) would have rendered the amendment
application infructuous. Nevertheless both these IAs along with IA
No.12078/2017 were heard together. This Court was of the view that
proposed amendment was necessary to decide the application moved
by the defendant for return of the plaint. It was specifically noted in
the order that IA No.5793/2016 (u/O VII R-10 CPC) for return of
plaint would be considered on merits after the plaintiffs were
permitted to amend the plaint incorporating the additional facts in para
(33) of the plaint by the Roster Bench.
11. The review petition is unmerited and is dismissed.
CS (COMM) 51/2016 & IA Nos.1110/2016 (u/O 39 R-1 & 2 CPC),
5793/2016 (u/O 7 R-10 CPC), 1152/17 (u/S 124 of the Trade Marks
Act)
List before Roster Bench for the date fixed i.e. 2nd
August, 2018.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
APRIL 25, 2018 / tr
