Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

15. This issue was again considered by this Court in Sagwa Singh Tyagi (Supra). Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted below:-

"13. In J. Samuel and others v. Gattu Mahesh and others: (2012) 2 SCC 300, the Court observed that, on a proper interpretation of proviso to Rule 17, Order 6 CPC, the party has to satisfy the Court that he could not discover that ground which was pleaded by proposed amendment of the plaint, despite due diligence. No doubt, Rule 17 confers power on the Court to amend pleading at any stage of the proceedings. However, the proviso restricts that power, once the trial has commenced. Unless the Court is satisfied that there is a reasonable cause for allowing amendment, normally the Court has to reject such requests. Due diligence is the idea behind such restriction, that is, a reasonable investigation is necessary before certain kinds of relief are requested. Undoubtedly, diligent efforts are a requirement for a party seeking to use adjudicatory mechanism to attain an undisputed relief. An advocate representing someone has to engage himself in due diligence to determine that the representations made by him are factually correct and sufficient. The term due diligence is specifically used in the Court so as to provide a test for determining whether to exercise a distinction in a situation of requested amendment after the commencement of trial. A party requesting a relief stemming out of a claim is required to exercise due diligence. It is a requirement which cannot be dispensed with. The term 'due diligence' determines the scope of parties' constructive knowledge, and is critical to the outcome of the suit. The Court also observed that decisions given before insertion of proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC may not help the parties to decide cases after such amendment has been inserted in CPC. The entire object of amendment to Order 6, Rule 17 , as introduced in the year 2002, is to stifle filing of application for amendment of a pleading, subsequent to the commencement of trial court, to avoid surprises and that the parties had sufficient knowledge of other's case. It also helps checking delays in filing applications. The Court in making the aforesaid observation relied on its earlier decisions in Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha and others: (2005) 7 SCC 534; Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand: (2008) 5 SCC 117; Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) through LRs v. S.K. Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and another: (2008) 14 SCC 364; Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another: (2009) 2 SCC 409; and Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs v. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512.

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]."