J. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India has been filed against order dated 24. 7. 2004 passed by Additional district Judge, Delhi allowing two applications under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint. ( 2 ) I have heard Mr. Sandeep Sethi, sr. Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C. Mukund, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the impugned order and the trial court record. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that respondent smt. Kamla Devi (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit against the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as defendants) for declaration, perpetual injunction and rendition of accounts stating therein that she had filed suit No. 386 of 1999 against the defendants in the Calcutta High Court. The defendants raised preliminary objection about territorial jurisdiction and the suit was dismissed on that ground. Besides that suit, a criminal complaint was also filed at Calcutta under sections 465/467/471 and 120-B of Indian Penal code in respect of the dissolution deed dated 16. 11. 1974. The said criminal complaint was quashed. It was, however, observed in the quashing order that the order will not stand in the way of institution of criminal proceedings in future in case the civil court comes to the conclusion that the dissolution deed dated 16. 11. 1974 was a forged document. After that the suit was filed in the High Court of delh. ( 4 ) LATE Ganga Bishan Aggarwal was carrying on business of selling sweets and snacks at bikaner under the partnership "chandmal ganga Bishan" registered at Jaipur. The partnership was reconstituted from time to time. The products like Bhujia, Papad, namkeen etc. were sold under the trade mark "haldiram Bhujiawala". Gradually the business acquired goodwill and the trade mark was got registered at New Delhi as well subject to the restriction that the trade mark will be applicable to the territories in India other than the State of West Bengal because one haldiram Madan Lal had opposed the registration. Ganga Bishan expired on 23. 2. 1980. Plaintiffs brother-in-law Mool chand Aggarwal, another partner died in november, 1985. It is alleged that in terms of partnership deed dated 31. 10. 1969 the business was to continue on death of the partners, by the surviving partners. Ganga Bishan expired on 23. 2. 1980. Plaintiffs brother-in-law Mool chand Aggarwal, another partner died in november, 1985. It is alleged that in terms of partnership deed dated 31. 10. 1969 the business was to continue on death of the partners, by the surviving partners. It is alleged that the firm was never dissolved nor the capital of the firm was distributed nor bank account was closed and plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 are the only surviving partners. It is further alleged that all important decisions were taken in consultation with the plaintiff and remaining partner at Bikaner The plaintiff's share of profit and loss in the said partnership firm was also duly forwarded to her at Calcutta after she had shifted from bikaner to Calcutta. During his life time Mool chand Aggarwal and after his death, defendant no. 1, Shiv Kishan Aggarwal remained in control of the property and the funds of the partnership as a trustee thereof with the plaintiff in accordance with her share therein. The assets and properties comprise funds with Bank of Bikaner, Bikaner Branch, goodwill of the firm and the trade mark etc. ( 5 ) IN the first week of July, 1999 the plaintiff's son Ashok Kumar Aggarwal fell ill at Delh. He was called to Calcutta for treatment. He was found to be suffering from mental depression. He disclosed to the plaintiff that his shop opened in the year 1991 at Delhi had been directed to be closed by an injunction order passed by the court and the basis of that injunction order was a deed of dissolution of the said partnership firm Chand Mal Ganga bishan. He told the plaintiff that the dissolution deed was signed by her and other partners by which the trade mark "haldiram Bhujiawala" was granted to Mool Chand Aggarwal. It is alleged that on the above said disclosure the plaintiff was surprised because she had never signed any such deed of dissolution of the partnership firm and for the first time she saw a copy of the deed of dissolution dated 16. 11. 1974, which was relied upon by the sons of Mool Chand Aggarwal. It is alleged that her signatures were forged in the said dissolution deed. ( 6 ) AFTER the above mentioned averments the various facts and circumstances have been detailed in the plaint to show that the dissolution dated 16. 11. 11. 1974, which was relied upon by the sons of Mool Chand Aggarwal. It is alleged that her signatures were forged in the said dissolution deed. ( 6 ) AFTER the above mentioned averments the various facts and circumstances have been detailed in the plaint to show that the dissolution dated 16. 11. 1974 was a forged and fabricated document and finally it is prayed that the said deed of dissolution be declared a forged document, the same be cancelled and the assignment of the trade mark "haldiram Bhujiawala" bearing registration No. 285062 be declared null and void and perpetual injunction be granted for restraining the defendants from using the said trade mark and there is also prayer for rendition of accounts. ( 7 ) IN the written statement 28 preliminary objections have been raised and 64 preliminary submissions have been made. The factual contentions on merits have been denied in voluminous details. The preliminary objections relate to the bar of limitation, the bar under the provisions of Trade Marks and merchandise Act. The suit is stated to be malafide and abuse of process of law. There is reference to other litigations including suits, appeals and contempt petitions not only in delhi but in other cities as well. There are allegations that plaintiff has suppressed material facts from the court and has made false statements in the plaint. Even in preliminary objections there are detailed objections relating to facts. Portions from the judicial orders, contents of the connected litigations and Provisions of the Trade Marks and Merchandise Act have been reproduced in the preliminary objections. There are denials and explanations relating to facts and law. There are repetitions after repetitions of the same facts and law. ( 8 ) THE suit was filed in the High Court in july, 2001. After enhancement of the jurisdiction of the District Courts, it was transferred to the District Courts in november, 2003. ( 9 ) A perusal of the order sheets shows that since the filing of the suit in the year 2001 hardly the pleadings have been completed. The plaint and the written statement were amended. Many miscellaneous applications are still pending and so far issues have not been framed. Even the application under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC has not yet been decided. The plaint and the written statement were amended. Many miscellaneous applications are still pending and so far issues have not been framed. Even the application under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC has not yet been decided. It appears that at every step there is a conflict and the trial court is asked to decide one or the other application and if the trial court proceeds with the matter according to its judicial discretion then any such miscellaneous order is also challenged. In one such challenge, during summer vacation in the year 2004, the High Court vide order dated June 18, 2004 directed the trial court to decide the application under order VI Rule 17 CPC moved by the plaintiff within three weeks from 5. 7. 2004 and thereafter application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was to be disposed of within 30 days. Pursuant to the order of the High Court the applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC were decided vide order dated 24. 7. 2004. The said order is challenged in this petition. ( 10 ) THERE are two applications : (i) dated 28. 2. 2004 and (ii) dated 2/5. 6. 2004, both under order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint. Both the applications have been disposed of by the impugned order. In the application dated 28. 2. 2004 it is averred that the ingredients of cause of action are mentioned in the body of the plaint but the specific para relating to the cause of action has not been written and para 40 (a) is sought to be incorporated regarding the cause of action. In the reply preliminary objections were raised that the application for amendment was belated. There is also mention of an earlier suit and the multiple litigations since December, 1990. It is stated that defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is pending, therefore, the plaintiff wants to fill up the lacunae and a new case was sought to be set up. Then the details about the merits of the case are given. In the second application dated 2/5. 6. 2004 it is pleaded that the main challenge in the suit was qua the deed of dissolution dated 16. 11. Then the details about the merits of the case are given. In the second application dated 2/5. 6. 2004 it is pleaded that the main challenge in the suit was qua the deed of dissolution dated 16. 11. 1974, which was alleged to be a forged and fabricated document and on the basis of the said dissolution deed trade mark "haldiram bhujiawala" was registered in favour of defendant No. 5, which was illegal, null and void and unenforceable and accordingly para ii (a) was sought to be added in the prayer clause for seeking declaration that change/ substitution/deletion of the name of the plaintiff with the names of defendant No. 1 to 4 by the Registrar of Trademarks vide order dated 15. 10. 1987 is wrongful, illegal and void ab- initio and Registrar of Trademarks was sought to be impleaded to obviate any technical objections. It is submitted that if the deed of dissolution is declared a forged document the consequential orders passed by the registrar will also go and the second amendment through this application is about the valuation of the suit to be added in para 42 of the plaint. In both the applications it is stated that the amendments will not change the nature or character of the suit and the same are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy and for complete adjudication of the disputes. This application was also opposed by raising several preliminary objections, making reference to the earlier suit and that the amendment was belated to fill up the lacunae and to meet the contentions of the application under Order VII Rule 11 cpc. There is reference to the provisions of trade Marks and Merchandise Act and bar of the jurisdiction of civil courts and that the amendments are not necessary for decision of the real controversies between the parties. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendants- petitioners has submitted that the case of the plaintiff is barred by time, the Registrar of trademarks cannot be impleaded because notice under Section 80 CPC has admittedly not given by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the dissolution deed dated 16. 11. 1974 was challenged in 2001 and now amendment is being sought in the year 2004. It is submitted that the plaintiff has falsely stated that she got knowledge regarding fabrication of the dissolution deed only in the year 1999. It is submitted that the dissolution deed dated 16. 11. 1974 was challenged in 2001 and now amendment is being sought in the year 2004. It is submitted that the plaintiff has falsely stated that she got knowledge regarding fabrication of the dissolution deed only in the year 1999. Further, the Trademarks and Merchandise act is a self contained code which provides channel of appeal and there is bar of jurisdiction of civil courts and that valuable rights have accrued to the defendants which cannot be taken away by amendment of the plaint. ( 12 ) AS against this learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that whatever is going to be proved after the amendments are allowed, need not be gone into before granting the amendments. As regards the bar of limitation, it is argued that the date of knowledge is matter of evidence. Further the registrar of Trademarks cannot declare a dissolution deed to be a forged document or void ab-initio and for that purpose only the civil courts have jurisdiction and whatever objections have to be raised will be raised by the Registrar and the defendants cannot act on his behalf. Even if there is no notice under section 80 CPC, the court will look into it after the amendment and may proceed in accordance with law. It is submitted that no valuable rights, if any of the defendants, will be taken away if amendments are allowed. ( 13 ) DURING the course of arguments it has been pointed out that many matters are pending between the parties and on my asking a list of the said litigations has been filed. According to the list 52 matters are pending between the parties which include suits, trade mark matters, FAOs (First Appeals against orders), other civil appeals, contempts petitions, SLPs, review petitions and criminal complaints not only in Delhi but in other cities as well. Needless to say that in many such proceedings there are bound to be common questions and the decision on the those questions is likely to have repercussions on other pending matters. ( 14 ) DURING the course of arguments both the learned counsel have in minute details referred to several documents out of the 12 volumes of the file running into about ten thousand pages. ( 14 ) DURING the course of arguments both the learned counsel have in minute details referred to several documents out of the 12 volumes of the file running into about ten thousand pages. They have argued extensively about the pending litigations in other courts in an effort to falsify the opposite party. ( 15 ) ADMITTEDLY, the parties are having multifarious litigations. This suit appears to be one of the main suits. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Additional District judge has touched all the main aspects that had to be gone into while disposing of the applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and has relied upon well established precedents. The learned judge has also compensated the defendants with Rs. 20,000/- as costs. It is not that after the amendments the defendants will not be having an opportunity to meet the case of the plaintiff. The defendants are not going to be taken by surprise. They will have ample opportunity to present their defence on all points. Issues are yet to be framed. ( 16 ) IN my view this court, cannot examine all the alleged facts, documents and the law applicable to the facts of the present case specially when these questions have to be gone into by the trial court after both the parties have lead their evidence. Needless to say that under Order VI Rule 17 CPC the! main ingredients are that the amendments are necessary for deciding the real questions in controversies and to see that valuable right accrued to the opposite party may not be taken away and whether application for amendment is malafide. In my view, the amendments are necessary for deciding the real questions in controversy between the parties. The case is at initial stages. No valuable right of the defendants is being taken away by the amendments. They will have ample opportunity to contest the matter on facts and law. ( 17 ) UNDER Article 227 of the Constitution of india it is established law that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court is exercised only if there is serious dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or there is gross failure of justice or there is a patent error which can be perceived without going into any lengthy or complicated arguments or a long drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view, the error cannot be called gross or patent. In my opinion there is no force in the contentions raised on behalf of the defendants for setting aside the impugned order. ( 18 ) IN my view the parties cannot be allowed to consume the precious time of the High court for examining interlocutory and procedural orders unless the matter falls in the extraordinary situations mentioned above. Considering all the facts and circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for interference under article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 19 ) BEFORE parting with this judgment I will prefer to say that the history of this case shows that the petitioners-defendants are not permitting the trial court to proceed with the main case. Many miscellaneous application are being filed. Each and every order is being challenged! The progress of the main suit stands almost stalled. It appears that the defendants want this court to go into the detailed facts and give a finding either for or against the plaintiff. In other words, the defendants want this court to act as a trial court and decide the controversies between the parties even before framing of the issues and even before conclusion of the evidence. No regard has been paid to the order passed by the High Court on June 18, 2004 (supra) the purport of which was expeditious disposal of the suit. ( 20 ) IN my view the petition is frivolous and vexatious. The same is, therefore, dismissed with Rupees One Lakh as costs. The trial court is directed to dispose of all the pending applications within 2 weeks and if it finds any application to be frivolous and vexatious, the same be dismissed with heavy and exemplary costs and if the suit remains in district Courts, it be disposed of within 4 months. ( 21 ) NOTHING said herein shall tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of the case.