Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20/ A party requesting a relief stemming out of a claim is required to exercise due diligence and it is a requirement which cannot be dispensed with. The term "due diligence" determines the scope of a party's constructive knowledge, claim and is very critical to the outcome of the suit."

10/ Coming to facts of the present case, petitioner's application for amendment in the counter claim was allowed by the trial Court by the order dated 5.7.2012 and thereafter the respondent had refused to avail the opportunity to make any consequential amendment and the parties had led evidence and matter had reached to the final stage. On 13.1.2014 the trial Court had heard final arguments and had reserved the case for judgment. The respondent thereafter had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC on 17.1.2014 for consequential amendment in the written statement as a result of the amendment incorporated by the petitioner in the counter claim. The only reason disclosed in the amendment application is that it was necessary for the respondent to make consequential amendment in the written statement in response to the amendment in the counter claim but due to confusion and mistake the said amendment could not be done. There is nothing in the application indicating that inspite of the due diligence the respondent could not take steps for making the consequential amendment in the written statement. The test of due diligence in terms of the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 is not satisfied in the present case. The trial Court while passing the impugned order, has not recorded any finding that the respondent could not move for the consequential amendment earlier inspite of the due diligence.