Haldiram Bhujiawala & Ors. for the plaintiffs. Sh. C. Mukund, Sh. Rajesh Mahendru & Sh. Amit Kasera, Advocates, Ld. Counsels for the defendants. O R D E R : 1. By way of present common order, I shall conscientiously decide two applications moved by the plaintiff seeking directions. While the first application is under order XVI Rule 1 and 6 read with section 151 CPC dated 11.04.2012 seeking an amendment in the list of witnesses filed on record and further seeking a permission to produce/summon the witnesses so mentioned in the list of witnesses for complete and effective adjudication of the controversy in the suit, the second application is an application for summoning of witnesses dated 09.05.2012, though the same do not mention any provision of law but the same ought to have been filed under order XVI Rule 1 (2) CPC for summoning the witnesses for trial. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant applications are that the parties to TM No.02/11/1992 Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar Vs. Haldiram Bhujiawala 1/28 2 the suit are either lineal decedent of one Shri Ganga Bishan Aggarwal @ Haldi Ram or their respective business enterprises. The plaintiffs who claims to be one of the branch of the aforesaid Shri Ganga Bishan led by his son Shri Mool Chand have filed the instant suit for infringement & passing off besides damages in the year 1991 against the defendants who are successor­in­interest of the other branch led by his other Shri Rameshwar Lal. In the suit the plaintiffs have claimed infringement of their registered trade mark 285062 Haldi Ram Bhujia Wala­HRB with V logo by the defendants and have accordingly claimed protection of their statutory rights under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, besides claiming protection of their common law rights of passing off on account of prior adoption and user. The plaintiffs have further claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/­. The foundation of the rights claimed by the plaintiffs in the aforesaid trade mark is the alleged deed of dissolution dated 16.11.1974 of firm M/s. Chand Mal Ganga Bishan whereby which the proprietary right in the trade mark is stated to have been assigned to Sh. Mool Chand for the entire country except the state of West Bengal which has been given to Sh. Rameshwar Lal of the other branch. Alongwith the this dissolution deed, a declaration of Sh. Rameshwar Lal of the same date has also been made the basis of the claim. 3. This claim was refuted by the defendants by setting up an independent right by virtue of a identical registered trade mark 330375. The deed of dissolution dated 16.11.1974 was TM No.02/11/1992 Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar Vs. Haldiram Bhujiawala 2/28 3 initially admitted to be executed by Smt. Kamla Devi wife of Shri Rameshwar Lal of the second branch 'out of courtesy and respect' which stand was later changed to 'undue influence' of her father­in­law Shri Ganga Bishan and brother­in­law Mool Chand in the first amended Written Statement. It so happened that later in the year 1999 even the execution of dissolution deed dated 16.11.1974 was sought to be denied by the defendants by trying to bring in the plea of forgery in the subsequently sought amendment. 4. The litigation proliferated beyond imagination and both sides approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court