ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the learned single Judge allowing the amendment in paragraph 48(c) of the plaint filed by the respondent.
2. The aforesaid suit has been filed by the respondent herein praying for permanent and mandatory injunction against alleged infringement of the registered trademark along with a prayer for rendition of accounts. Written statement is yet to be filed by the appellant. Proceedings are at the initial stage. In spite of the said admitted position, learned Counsel for the appellant herein states that the amendment allowing reduction in the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction from Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 20,00,050/- in respect of prayer for rendition of accounts should not have been allowed. The aforesaid opposition to the amendment is made on the ground that the same is not permissible in view of Section 4 read with Section 28 and Schedule I of the Court Fees Act. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned Counsel relied upon decision of this Court in Pfizer Products Inc. v. B.L.& Co. and Ors. (129) 2006 DLT 327.
3. The respondent had stated in the amendment application that the suit for relief of rendition of accounts is provisionally valued for the purpose of court fees at Rs.20,00,050/- and court fees of Rs. 21,913/- is fixed thereon. However, for the purpose of jurisdiction, the relief of rendition of accounts was valued at Rs. 1,00,00,050/- on the basis that the respondent expects that it will be entitled to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. In the amendment application, it was stated by the respondent that at the moment it has no viable means of calculating or estimating the amount of profits they will be entitled to and therefore, for the purpose of jurisdiction the suit for rendition of accounts is sought to be valued at Rs. 20,00,050/-.
4. The reason given by the respondent/plaintiff has been accepted by the learned single Judge.
5. It is well settled that a plaintiff can assign different valuations in a suit for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction, unless there is a statutory prohibition. The Supreme Court in the case of Commercial Aviation and Travel v. Vimla Pannalal reported at has laid down that in a suit for rendition of accounts, it is almost impossible for a plaintiff to value relief for rendition of accounts with arithmetical accuracy. Reference was made to Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act and it was noticed that the legislature has left the question of valuation of the relief for rendition of accounts to the plaintiffs. The legislature had also not laid down any specific standards for valuation. It was also noticed that as per Rules framed under Section 9 of the Court Fees Act applicable to Delhi, no standard for valuation has been laid down. Thus, tentative valuation given by the plaintiff should be normally accepted. This Court in the case of Pfizer Products, Inc. v. B.L. & Co. and Ors reported in 129 (2006) DLT 327, following the earlier judgments in the case of Eastman Kodak Co. v. M.R. Electrnoics and Ors. reported in 56 (1994) DLT 79 and Automatic Electric Limited v. R.K. dhawan and Anr. has held that ordinarily courts will not examine the tentative correctness of the valuation given but the plaintiff cannot act arbitrarily and fix any value. In the case of Pfizer Products (supra) it was noticed that the plaintiff had valued it’s turnover into thousands of crores for claiming damages for infringement and therefore the difference in valuation of relief for rendition of accounts for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction was held to be contrary to law.
6. The facts of the present case are entirely different. The respondent had moved an amendment application for reducing the tentative value fixed by him for jurisdiction purposes in respect of the relief for rendition of accounts. It is not the case of the appellant that the valuation as made in the amendment application is arbitrary and without any basis. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not argued on this basis. Learned Single Judge has also not found on examining the facts of the case that the valuation as stated in the amendment application filed by the respondent for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction for rendition of accounts and profits was arbitrary. In the present case as per the original plaint the relief for rendition of accounts for purpose of Court fee was valued at Rs. 20,00,050/- and the same relief for the purpose of jurisdiction was valued at Rs. 1 crore. As per the amendment application, the relief of rendition of accounts for purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction was sought to be valued at the same figure of Rs. 20,00,050/-. Learned Single Judge while allowing the said amendment has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Hamid Shamsi v. Abdul Majid . In view of the reasons given above, and those given by the learned single Judge, we do not find any merit in the above contention of the appellant.
7. Now turning to the question of amendment, the law is well settled that Court should not adopt hyper-technical approach and a liberal approach is the general rule. As already stated above, the Suit is still at the initial stage and the appellant-defendant No. 2 is yet to file its written statement. It is also well settled that amendments once allowed generally relate back to the original filing of the plaint, unless order to the contrary is passed by the Court while allowing the amendment application. (Refer Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu ).
8. Supreme Court in the case of Lakha Ram Sharma v. Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2003 (27) PTC 175 has also held that merely because an amendment may take the suit out of the jurisdiction of the Court allowing the amendment application, is no ground to refuse the amendment prayed for. Further, while considering the question whether an amendment should be granted or not, a Court does not go into the merits of the matter and decide whether the claim is bona fide or not. This question is decided during trial.
9. Learned Single Judge has in his Order has referred to a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. Kaul, passed in almost similar circumstances in CS(OS) No. 137/2005 titled M/s. Registhan Private Ltd. v. Mr. Tara Chand Maheshwari decided on 25th January, 2006. It may be noted that judgment in the case of Pfizer Products (supra) is by the same hon’ble Judge.
10. In this view of the matter, we find no ground to entertain the present Appeal and the same is dismissed.