[2025:RJ-JP:324] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1220/2015 Vijay Solvex Ltd having its registered Office at ‘Bhagwati Sadan’, Swami Dayanand Marg, Alwar and having its Factory at Old Industrial Area, Itarana Road, Alwar through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Subh Karan Pareek. ----Petitioner-Plaintiff Versus 1. M/s Saurabh Agrotech Pvt Ltd having its Office at Plot Nos.20,21 and 22, Old Industrial Area, Alwar through its Director; 2. M/s Vijay Industries through its Partner Ajay Data S/o Shri Babu Lal Data. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 07/01/2025 The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’), in Civil Suit No.12/2014 titled as “Vijay Solves Limited Vs. M/S. Saurabh Agrotech Private Limited & Anr.”, whereby the trial court partly disallowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the plaint. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant No.1 for permanent injunction and restraining it to use ‘Scooter Logo/Label’ in which M/s Vijay Industries was impleaded as a party-defendant by the trial court [2025:RJ-JP:324] (2 of 3) [CW-1220/2015] vide order dated 19.07.2014. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 before the trial court. The trial court vide order dated 05.12.2014 while partly allowing the application filed by the plaintiff, only permitted the amendment as proposed in Para No.4 of the application and refused to permit other proposed amendments. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that since the trial court vide order dated 19.07.2014 had impleaded M/s. Vijay Industries as a party-defendant No.2 in the suit and defendant No.2 had filed the written statement & counter claim and when the plaintiff had not sought any relief against the defendant No.2 in the plaint, it was necessary to amend the plaint consequently. So, the order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the trial court be set-aside and amendments sought for by the plaintiff be allowed. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction regarding mustard oil in which ‘Scooter Logo/Label’ was used. He had not filed the suit regarding ‘Scooter Vansapati’ or ‘Scooter Gold Vanasapati’. By way of amendment, he wanted to alter the entire nature of suit because present suit is not related to ‘Scooter Vanaspati’ or ‘Scooter Gold Vanasapati’. So, the trial court rightly partly disallowed the amendment regarding it. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants. [2025:RJ-JP:324] (3 of 3) [CW-1220/2015] It is an admitted position that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is regarding ‘Scooter mustard oil’. He had not filed the suit with regard to ‘Scooter Vanaspati’ or ‘Scooter Gold Vanaspati’. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has rightly partly disallowed the amendment regarding ‘Scooter Vanaspati’ or ‘Scooter Gold Vanaspati’. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application, if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/19