Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Supreme Court again in J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh, (2012) 2 SCC 300, held that due diligence is the idea that reasonable investigation is necessary before certain kinds of relief are requested. Duly diligent efforts are a requirement for a party seeking to use the adjudicatory mechanism to attain an anticipated relief. An advocate representing someone must engage in due diligence to determine that the representations made are factually accurate and sufficient. The term "due diligence" is specifically used in the Code so as to provide a test for determining whether to exercise the discretion in situations of requested amendment after the commencement of trial. 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. In the given facts, there is a clear lack of "due diligence" and the mistake committed certainly does not come within the preview of a typographical error. Similar view was taken in Vidyabai Vs. Padma Latha, (2009) 2 SCC 409, Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. Manoj Kumar, (2009) 14 SCC 38 and Abdul Rehman Vs. Mohd. Ruldu, (2012) 11 SCC 341.

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.

x x x x x

23. ...The entire object of the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 as introduced in 2002 is to stall filing of application for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and that the parties had sufficient knowledge of other's case. It also helps checking the delays in filing the applications. [Vide Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha [(2005) 7 SCC 534], Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. [(2006) 12 SCC 1], Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand [(2008) 5 SCC 117], Rajkumar Gurawara v. S.K. Sarwagi and Co. (P) Ltd. [(2008) 14 SCC 364], Vidyabai v. Padmalatha [(2009) 2 SCC 409 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 563] and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha [(2010) 10 SCC 512 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 239]."