Facts suppressed and misrepresented in plaint cannot be amended in order to bring the same on record at a later stage under Order VI Rule 17

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court, held that when a party fails to approach the Court with clean hands by suppressing and/or fabricating material facts, such a party ought to be disentitled from any relief.

The said ruling was delivered in the matter of Aura Synergy Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s. New Age False Ceiling Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., CS (COMM) No. 799 of 2017 decided on 17.07.2018.



The Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction restraining passing off of trade mark with damages along with an application for injunction. On 02.11.2015, the Hon’ble Court passed an order of ex-parte ad interim injunction. However, the said injunction was vacated on 10.02.2016 once it came to the light before the Court that Plaintiff had indulged in gross suppression of facts and mis-statements in the suit. The Plaintiff had now moved an application for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in order to overcome the suppression of facts by disclosing the business relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendants.



The Hon’ble Court held that the law is settled that Plaintiff cannot rob the defendant of a defense that had already accrued in its favour, i.e. suppression of facts in the present case, by way of an amendment. The Plaintiff had suppressed material facts in the plaint and the same had been confirmed in order dated 10.02.2016 where the ex-parte ad interim injunction was vacated. It was further observed that if plaintiff is permitted to change its stand, the same would amount to giving premium on dishonesty and will send a message that Court can be approached to harass the defendant by misrepresenting facts and later changing the stand by amending such suits. The application of the Plaintiff was dismissed with cost.