Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Shree Ram Gupta vs Shafiquer Rahmand And Others on 27 January, 2010

Aadish Aggarwal & Anr vs Brijeshwar Swaroop & Anr on 29 May, 2018

[6]. Learned counsel for review applicant/respondent No.1 relied upon Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and another Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others, 2007(1) Civil Court Cases 500(SC), Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 763 (SC), Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India, 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 420 (SC), Ashok Kumar Laroia Vs. Vijay Kumar and another, 2011(5) RCR (Civil) 268, Ram Babu and others Vs. District Judge, Unnao and others, 2012(1) LJR 205 (Allahabad), R.P.S Associates Vs. Om Parkash @ Hari Singh and others, 2012(5) RCR (Civil) 109, Piari Bai Vs. Smt. Jamna Bai, 1998(3) Civil Court Cases 604 (P&H), Rakesh Kumar and another Vs. Satnam Singh and others 2010(4) Civil Court Cases 128 (P&H), Smt. Singhshari Devi and another Vs. Deena Nath Pandey and others, 1998(1) Civil Court Cases 481 (Patna), Rajbir Singh and others Vs. Tejinder Singh and others, 2015(3) LJR 651 (Punjab and 3 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2018 10:10:51 ::: CM No.22262-CII of 2017 with RA-CR No.179-CII of 2017 in CR No.6659 of 2016 4 Haryana), Bahadur Singh and another Vs. Avtar Singh, 2007(3) Civil Court Cases 417 (P&H), Gurmukh Singh Vs. Gursharan Kaur, 2013(1) PLR 460 (Punjab and Haryana), Chhabubai Haribhau Badakh Vs. S.H. Khatod and Sons and another, 2010(1) Civil Court Cases 218 (Bombay), Anil Vs. Pankaj, 2010(4) Civil Court Cases 185 (Bombay), Shree Ram Gupta Vs. Shafiquer Rahman and others, 2010(3) Civil Court Cases 274 (Allahabad), Ramesh Ramanujam and others Vs. Varadammal and others, 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 761 (Madras), Narendra Kumar and another Vs. Prem Narain Parihar, 2010(3) Civil Court Cases 145 (Allahabad) and Ramji Rai and another Vs. Jagdish Mallah (Dead) through LRs and another, 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 680 (SC) and contended that amendment in the pleadings cannot be allowed after trial has commenced, unless in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised before the commencement of trial. Under the proviso, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised before the commencement of trial. No application of pleading shall be allowed unless the above requirement is satisfied. The amended Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was inserted due to the recommendation of the Law 4 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2018 10:10:51 ::: CM No.22262-CII of 2017 with RA-CR No.179-CII of 2017 in CR No.6659 of 2016 5 Commission, since Order 17 as it existed prior to the amendment was being invoked by parties interested in delaying the trial. That to shorten the litigation and speed up disposal of the suits, amendment was made by the Amending Act, 1999, deleting Rule 17 from the Code. Therefore, by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002, provision has been restored by recognizing the power of the Court to grant amendment, however, with certain limitation which is contained in the new proviso added to the Rule. In pith and substance, the aforesaid precedents can be relied to say that the amendment cannot be allowed after commencement of trial, unless it is proved that in spite of due diligence, the issue could not be raised before the commencement of trial. Mala fide amendment cannot be allowed to be incorporated.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1