Perjury proceedings require proof of deliberate falsehood, not mere inadvertent errors or misidentification of parties.

The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants for using the mark ‘GOOD DAY’ for soan papdi.

An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted on 07.11.2024 but later vacated by consent on 18.02.2025.

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed CRL.M.A. 12448/2025 alleging perjury, claiming the Plaintiff suppressed a 2018 rectification proceeding against the Subject Mark.

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 also alleged that the Plaintiff misrepresented the Defendants as "new entrants" to create false urgency.

The Plaintiff filed I.A. 8021/2025 to amend the plaint to include the history of these proceedings.

The Plaintiff filed I.A. 8053/2025 to implead the registered proprietor of the mark, Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal, citing inadvertent errors due to deceptive similarities in company names on the MCA portal.

Whether perjury proceedings should be initiated against the Plaintiff under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the BNSS for alleged suppression of material facts.

Whether the Plaintiff should be permitted to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to include facts regarding prior trademark proceedings.

Whether the impleadment of the registered proprietor of the Subject Mark is necessary for the adjudication of the suit under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.

The Court applied Section 379 and Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 340 CrPC).

This section requires a "prima facie case of deliberate falsehood" and "exceptional circumstances" where it is "expedient in the interest of justice" to prosecute for perjury.

It relied on the Supreme Court principles in *Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh* (2023).

It also relied on *Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam* (1971).

Regarding amendments, the Court applied Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, emphasizing a "liberal approach" to determine the "real controversy" as established in *Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi* (2006).

The Court found that the Plaintiff’s failure to disclose the 2018 rectification petition was an "inadvertent error" rather than a "deliberate falsehood".

The confusion regarding the Defendants' identity arose because the Defendants themselves used an incorrect name ("DESI BITES" with a space) on their packaging, which led the Plaintiff to retrieve the wrong MCA records.

Since the Plaintiff was unaware of the specific corporate connection between Defendant No. 1 and the proprietor Mr. Agarwal at the time of filing, there was no "unimpeachable evidence" of a conscious attempt to mislead the court.

Regarding the amendments and impleadment, the Court reasoned that since the proposed Defendant (Mr. Agarwal) holds the registration for the mark in Class 30, his presence and the history of related proceedings are essential to resolve the "real question in controversy" regarding infringement.

The Court allowed the applications for amendment (I.A. 8021/2025) and impleadment (I.A. 8053/2025).

The Court ordered the amended plaint to be taken on record and summons to be issued to the newly added Defendant Nos. 4 and 5.

The Plaintiff was directed to file an amended memo of parties within two weeks.