Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 360 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Chander Kanta Bansal vs Rajinder Singh Anand on 11 March, 2008

Smt. Chander Kanta Bansal vs . Sh. Rajinder Singh Anand. on 31 March, 2017

15. Ld.   Counsel   for   the   Appellant   referred   to   certain portions of cross examination of PW­5 and submitted that there has been certain admissions of plaintiff / respondent herein regarding partition of properties including the drive way.   I   find   that   such   argument   is   not   sustainable. Evidence of any witness is to be appreciated by reading the evidence in totality and not in extract. If we consider the evidence of PW­5 along with other witnesses, it would be very   much   clear   that   at   no   point   of   time   plaintiff   has admitted any partition or partition wall at Point X. Neither plaintiff is making any exclusive claim in respect of drive way or passage of 10 fts wide. Such was the observations of RCA No.45/16/08 Page No.  13 RCA No. 45/16/08  (661088/2016)                       Smt. Chander Kanta Bansal vs. Sh. Rajinder Singh Anand.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Firoz Uddin And 4 Others vs Shri Anwar Uddin on 8 May, 2023

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]."
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - N Tiwari - Full Document

Perviz J. Modi vs Perviz J. Modi on 20 March, 2013

17. Mr. Doctor, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiffs has, in rejoinder, submitted that the judgments cited by the Defendant in the case of Chander Kanta Bansal (supra) not only supports the Plaintiffs' contention that once a trial commences on known pleas, no application for amendment should be allowed but also further explains the concept of "due diligence" with reference to some dictionary meanings and thus supports the Plaintiffs' contention that the Defendant ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:45:40 ::: KPP 15 CHS No. 867 of 2012 has not satisfied the conditions precedent of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Mr. Doctor reiterated that the present amendment seeks to introduce facts which have occurred in 2005, without giving any details as to what care or attention the Defendant has exercised in order to bring the said facts on record at any earlier point of time and thus the Defendant does not satisfy the requirements under the definitions extracted in the judgment. There is no explanation as to why these facts are sought to be pleaded after completion of the evidence of Plaintiff No.1, thereby clearly showing that this is nothing but an afterthought on the part of the Defendant.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

J.Ram Reddy vs K.Jyothi on 9 June, 2025

In view of the tests laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra as to what amounts to exercise of 'due diligence', the petitioner in the present case did not aver anything in the entire affidavit as to how she exercised due diligence and despite exercise of due diligence, she could not bring those facts on record before commencement of trial.
Telangana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

K.Balamurugan ... Revision vs B.Jayachandran on 12 April, 2018

In Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that no application for amendment shall be allowed after commencement of trial, provided it is established that, in spite of 'due diligence', the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. It was found on the facts of the case therein that the party failed to substantiate the inordinate delay in filing the application, that too, after closing of evidence and arguments.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The vs Unknown on 5 May, 2022

9. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondents has addressed his arguments based on the observations made by the Apex Court in Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand wherein it is held that according to the new proviso no application for amendment shall be allowed after the commencement of the trial, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial and then only the application for amendment could be considered. Further, it is held that this provision would, to some extent, limit the scope of amendment to pleadings, but would still vest enough powers in Courts to deal with the unforeseen situations whenever they arise, subsequent to commencement of trial. In fact due diligence has been considered by the Apex Court and "due diligence" means reasonable diligence, which a prudent man would exercise in the conduct of his own affairs.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - D Ramesh - Full Document

Madhaw Asharam Chairitable Trust ... vs Shri Shamshul Khuda Khan on 7 August, 2019

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]."
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - Y K Srivastava - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next