Madras High Court Allows “Acha Dholak” Pleading Amendment, Says Issues Framing Does Not Commence Trial

On 1 October, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order allowing amendment of pleadings in a trade mark suit concerning the “Acha Dholak” safety match brand.

Justice R. Poornima held that mere framing of issues does not establish that a trial has substantially commenced for deciding an application to amend pleadings. The Bench observed:

“Mere framing of issues does not, by itself, establish that the trial had substantially commenced. More importantly, the plaintiff has offered an explanation that the relevant documents relating to the origin and constitution of the business were subsequently traced and that immediately thereafter, the amendment application was filed on legal advice.”

Sri Balamurugan Match Works filed the suit against The President Match Company and its partners in 2024, alleging infringement of its registered “Acha Dholak” mark, featuring a musical instrument device, and copying of its label as an artistic work.

During the suit, Sri Balamurugan Match Works sought to add its partners as parties and plead that its founder, the plaintiff's father, started the business in 1971, obtained a licence for the brand in 1988 and handed over the business in 2014. The trial court allowed the amendment.

The defendants challenged the order before the High Court. They argued that issues had already been framed in January 2025 and the trial was listed for February 2025. Since the amendment was sought after commencement of trial, they contended that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the due-diligence requirement under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). They alleged that the amendment was an attempt to fill a gap in the plaintiff's case.

They also argued that the amendment changed the plaintiff's case regarding its own status and introduced a new cause of action. They contended that the plaintiff's reference to a licence would defeat its claim under Sections 52 and 53 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Court rejected the challenge. It held that mere framing of issues did not mean that the trial had substantially commenced and accepted the plaintiff's explanation that it had traced the relevant documents subsequently. It also held that an amendment “cannot ordinarily be rejected merely because the amended pleading may give rise to a defence on merits”.

Further, the Bench held that the amended pleadings only explain “the genesis of the business and the basis on which the plaintiff claims rights in the registered trade mark”. It found that the defendants had not shown any serious prejudice. It directed the trial court to proceed with the suit and permitted the defendants to file an additional written statement.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the civil revision petition with no costs.