JUDGMENT Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. (Oral)-The respondent had filed a suit for perpetual injunction, infringement of copyright, passing off and delivery up, etc., which is pending before the Trial Court. The respondent filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) to amend the plaint. It may be noticed that the petitioner (original defendant) did not appear in the suit and was proceeded ex parte on 23.7.2004. However, an application was filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code and on 31.8.2004 that application was allowed and the application of the respondent under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code was put up for hearing. The said application was taken up on 15.10.2004 when no objection of learned Counsel for the petitioner to the amendment was recorded. The order goes on to record that the amended plaint is already on record, though learned Senior Counsel for the respondent states that this is not factually correct. Additional Court fee was directed to be paid on or before the next date of hearing of 25.11.2004. 2. The Additional Court fee was not paid and the matter was adjourned thereafter on two occasions, when finally on 4.3.2005, a statement was made by learned Counsel for the respondent that they do not wish to press the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. This was objected to by learned Counsel for the petitioner, but the Trial Court held that this is a matter which falls totally within the domain of the plaintiff and allowed the request. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to contend that the application of the respondent was already allowed on 15.10.2004 and, thus, nothing could be withdrawn by the respondent. 4. A perusal of the order dated 15.10.2004 shows that thers is some ambiguity in this behalf. This ambiguity arises on account of the fact that while the respondent has been directed to pay the Additional Court fee, there is no formal order saying that the application of the respondent stands allowed. It is also relevant to note that the subsequent proceedings are before the same learned Judge, who has considered the application of the respondent as still pending. 5. It is also relevant to note that the subsequent proceedings are before the same learned Judge, who has considered the application of the respondent as still pending. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent further points out that Order VI Rules 17 and 18 of the Code have to be read together and form a scheme by themselves. The said provisions read as under: ORDER VI Pleadings Generally 17. Amendment of pleadings-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 18. Failure to amend after order-If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the time limited for the purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended by the Court. " 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, thus, contends that even if it be assumed that the respondent had obtained leave to amend the suit, non-filing of the amaneded plaint and non-filing of the Additional Court fee would result in a situation where the original plaint has to proceed. In this behalf, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has referred to a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Southern Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd. v. Southern Alloy Foundaries Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2003 Madras 416. The legal position in respect of the provisions of Order VI Rule 18 of the Code was summed up to the effect that the failure to carry out an amendment necessarily results in the Court proceeding only on the basis of the unamended pleadings. 7. The legal position in respect of the provisions of Order VI Rule 18 of the Code was summed up to the effect that the failure to carry out an amendment necessarily results in the Court proceeding only on the basis of the unamended pleadings. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the amendment was allowed, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code as being insufficiently stamped. 8. I am in agreement with the submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. This is so since if the plaint is originally insufficiently stamped and the Additional Court fee is directed to be paid, then the plaint is liable to be returned in view of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (c) of the Code. The question of amendment of the plaint specifically forms part of Order VI Rules 17 and 18 of the Code. The consequence of failure to amend a plaint in accordance with the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code has to result in consequence as stated in Order VI Rule 18 of the Code. The consequence would be that the original plaint must be tried. Thus, if the matter is looked into in either of the two situations, the result would be the same. 9. There is no patent error or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the Trial Court. 10. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.