J. D. Jain ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. for amendment of plaint. ( 2 ) THE facts germane to the disposal of this application succinctly are that as far back as January 1976, the plaintiff-applicant instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing of his copy right and passing his goods viz. white zinc paint as goods of the plaintiff by colour-able imitation of the design on the container in which the white zinc paint of the plaintiff was sold under the trade mark 1001. It was alleged that salient features of the plaintiff s trade mark were the numeral 1001 appearing in bold type in great lettering on a white circle alongwith the expression "superior white" on top and bottom of the circle. Further the plaintiff s artistic design on the container was registered under No. A. 13952/75 under the Copy Right Act 1957 and had been used for about a year prior to the institution of the suit. However, the defendant adopted an identical containers in respect of its white paint which depicted numeral 9001 appearing in bold type in grade lettering on a white circle superior white on top and zinc paint on the bottom in the circle. It was further alleged that the get-up lay-out, arrangement and violet grey and white colour combination adopted by the defendant were in order to cause confusion and deception in the minds of the trade and the public and in order to pass off white zinc point as the genuinel product of the plaintiff. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff now seeks to amend his plaint by raising an additional ground of infringement of his trade mark 1001 and the container design which was registered during the pendency of the suit being No 307527 dated 8. 8. 75. He has also pointed out that he had registered trade mark No. 124357 for the numeral 1001 per se dated 19. 8. 46 Thus according to him, both the registered trade mark Nos. 307527 and the registered Copy Right No. 13952/75 relate to one of the same artistic representation of his containers and the trade mark registration of the container confers additional proprietory right on him as against the defendants and other persons who had invaded his right. He has also. 8. 46 Thus according to him, both the registered trade mark Nos. 307527 and the registered Copy Right No. 13952/75 relate to one of the same artistic representation of his containers and the trade mark registration of the container confers additional proprietory right on him as against the defendants and other persons who had invaded his right. He has also. pointed out that a certified copy of his registered Trade Mark No. 307527 has already been tendered in evidence during the course of trial under Section 115 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act vide order dated 29. 8. 79. So be seeks amendment by addition of a new plea in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. ( 4 ) THE application is opposed tooth and nail by the defendant who has raised two-fold objections. In the first instance, it is argued that this application for amendment is not only very much belated, but also malafide. It is pointed out that the arguments in this case were heard 4-5 days and the judgment was reserved on 5. 9. 79. However, the plaintiff never expressed an intention to seek amendment of the plaint even though he filed certified copy of the Trade Mark No. 307527 on 8. 8. 79 and it was admitted in evidence on 29. 8. 79. Thus, according to the defendant, the motive behind proprosed amendment is to cause delay and enjoy the benefit of the interim injunction already granted to him by this court. Secondly, it is argued that the amendment is misconceived as the plaintiff wants to substitute a new cause of action and set up an altogether new case which is not at all permissible. The argument advanced is that the claim for passing off was made on the basis of the design, get-up etc. of the container, but the plaintiff now wants to substitute the claim for infringement of his registered trade mark in lieu of his earlier action for passing off. This will not only change the entire complexion of the suit, but even necessitate a fresh trial. ( 5 ) I have bestowed careful thought and consideration on the matter. of the container, but the plaintiff now wants to substitute the claim for infringement of his registered trade mark in lieu of his earlier action for passing off. This will not only change the entire complexion of the suit, but even necessitate a fresh trial. ( 5 ) I have bestowed careful thought and consideration on the matter. No doubt the original suit was based on infringement of copy right and passing off action which constitutes distinct cause of action in contrast to the action for infringement of registered trade mark. All the same it cannot be gainsaid that these cause of actions are somewhat akin to each other. In A. Abdul Karim Sahib v. A. Shanmugha Mudaliar,1 it was observed as under: "the statute law relating to infringement of trade mark is based on the some fundamental principles as the general law relating to passing off. Though there may be some produral differences between the two actions in substance and in effect and action for passing off can easily be telescoped into an action for infringement of trade mark and vice versa. Hence, a suit instituted for an injunction restraining the defendant from marketing certain goods under a mark which is deceptingly similar to the plaintiff s mark can be amended in to one for infringement of trade mark under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958. If the plaintiff has obtained registration of his mark under the Act after the institution of the suit, such an amendment will not change the cause of action and would only be in the nature of alternative relief. "the learned Judge also took note of the arguments advanced by the defendant in that case that the suit has to be decided on the facts and circumstances existing on the date of the institution. And as such amendment should not be allowed with respect to subsequent developments, but repelled the same observing that : "there may be circumstances which would warrant a court taking into consideration supervening if it is in the interest of justice and the some cases it will almost be the duty of the court to take note of subsequent events brought to its notice lest it should fail to do substantial justice between the parties. " ( 6 ) WITH great respect I am in full agreement with his observation. " ( 6 ) WITH great respect I am in full agreement with his observation. In case the amendment is refused, the plaintiff may have to bring another suit and the object of the rule for allowing amendment to the plaint is to avoid multiplicity of the suits to the extent possible. In A. K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation,2 the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with various aspects of the law on the subject of amendment of the pleadings. However, the following excerpts from the judgment are very pertinent to note : "it is not in dispute that at the date of the application for amendment, a suit for a money claim under the contract was barred the general rule, no doubt is that a party which is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of actionparticularly when a suit of new case or cause of action is barred. But it is also well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a difference or additional approach to the same facts. The amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation. " ( 7 ) THE principal reasons that have led to the rule last mentioned are first, that the object of courts and rules of procedure is to be decided the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes and secondly that a party is directly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when that is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance put already in the pleadings sought to be amended. It may be that as a result of the amendment, if the respondent chooses to raise a controversy about the work done, that is about the quantity, quality and other things concerning it which it had never raised so long, the matter will have to be gone into. That action would not justify a refusal of leave to amend. It would not mean any waste of time or money or in duplication of work. That investigation would now be made for the first time and nothing done so far would become futile. That action would not justify a refusal of leave to amend. It would not mean any waste of time or money or in duplication of work. That investigation would now be made for the first time and nothing done so far would become futile. " ( 8 ) THERE can be no shadow of doubt that the amendment sought in the instant case is necessary for a decision of real dispute between the parties viz. what are their respective rights viz-a-viz a particular trade mark and the general design and get-up of the container in which their respective goods are marketed. This dispute was substantially involved in the instant case as originally framed and all the necessary basic facts had been stated therein except that the registration of the design of the plaintiff was not there. So, amendment, if allowed, will not prejudice the defendants in any manner even though it introduced a new cause of action in the strict technical sense. Thus the mere fact that this application is balated or that it may necessitate a fresh trial to some extent would be no ground to refuse amendment especially when it will not have the effect of converting a suit of one character into a suit of other character. It is well settled that the main considerations to be borne in mind in exercising the discretion are that the rules of procedure have no other aim than to facilitate the task of administrating justice, that multiplicity of suits should be avoided and that the interest of substantial justice would be advanced. Thus, it is not the case of the type where the proposed amendment will cause prejudice to the defendant and he cannot be compensated by way of costs. Indeed the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real matter in the controversy between the parties even though the plaintiff is entitled to institute a fresh suit for infringement of his registered trade mark. Hence taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, I consider it to be a fit case where discretion vesting in the court should be exercised in favour of the plaintiff rather than not. ( 9 ) AS a result I allow this application for amendment subject to payment of Rs. 400. 00 as costs. ( 10 ) AMENDED plaint be filed within a fortnight if not already filed.