1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.303 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2061 OF 2004 Dr. P.J.THOMAS ..PLAINTIFF VS. DOW AGROSCIENCES INDIA PVT LTD. ..DEFENDANTS Mr. Ajay Panicker for Plaintiff Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Mr. Pankaj Kode i/b M. Humranwala for Defendant No.1 Mr. Prasanna Tare i/b Vigil Juris for Defendant No.2 CORAM: Smt. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 25 th March, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Plaintiff has sued for compensation upon sale of the Plaintiff's Trade Mark by the Defendants to whom it was assigned by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs has claimed percentage of the profits made upon such sale. The Plaintiff had no particulars about the extent of the sale. The Plaintiff has estimated the extent of the sales. The plaintiff gave notice to produce the documents of the Defendants. The Defendants, after much delay and after directions in that regard were passed, produced the documents in October, 2008. The documents revealed the actual sales by the Defendant No.1. Actuals came to the knowledge of the 2 Plaintiff only in October, 2008. It is a subsequent event, it requires to be brought on record. The Plaintiff has taken out this Chamber Summons in February, 2009. The Chamber Summons is not delayed. The entitlement of the plaintiff's claim shall be decided on merits. The Plaintiff is liable to be cross- examined upon his further claim also. 2. The amendment is sought to be opposed on the ground that the trial has begun. It is a settled position in law that in the interest of justice and to determine the case of the parties amendments have been allowed even in Appeals after entire trial is completed. It is correct that the trial has begun. The Plaintiff has filed several affidavits of examination- in-chief. Cross- examination therefrom has not begun. The Defendants shall be entitled not only to file further written statement but also further cross- examine the Plaintiff. 3. Specially in view of the fact of the amendments related to what has been brought on record upon Defendants producing the relevant document as aforesaid after much ado. The Plaintiff cannot be prevented from relying upon those documents to base his claim. The entire effort would be in vain, if a party is allowed to give notice to produce documents and not allowed to rely upon documents produced. It would lead to an absurd situation. 3 4. The Defendants Advocate has relied upon a judgment in the case of Jeet Ram Kishore & ors Vs. Sunder Singh, AIR 2005 HP 21 to contend that the amendment cannot be allowed after the trial has commenced when the written statement was sought to be amended. That was the case in which the Defendants having not disputed the title of the Plaintiff sought to amend their written statement after Plaintiff's evidence was over. This is not one such case. 5. The Plaintiff has not unduly delayed in applying for the amendment and has explained the delay, if any. Chamber Summons made absolute in terms of prayers (a) & (b). The Plaintiff shall amend the Plaint within one week. The Plaintiff shall also amend the copy of the Plaint served upon the Defendants within one week. The Plaintiff shall file additional Affidavit of evidence, if any, required within two weeks. The Defendants shall be entitled to file additional written statement within 30 days from the time of service of amended plaint. (Smt. Roshan Dalvi, J)