Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 232 (2.23 seconds)
Documents citing M.Revanna vs Anjanamma (Dead) By Lrs. on 14 February, 2019

Aarur Tamilnadan vs Mr.S.Shankar

“7. Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case, or 13/23 http://www.judis.nic.in A.No.3227 of 2021 in CS No.914 of 2010 challenges the fundamental character of the suit. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has commenced, 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. The proviso, to an extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Therefore, the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after commencement of the trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought earlier. There cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances. Though normally amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the Court needs to take into consideration whether the application for amendment is 14/23 http://www.judis.nic.in A.No.3227 of 2021 in CS No.914 of 2010 bona fide or mala fide and whether the amendment causes such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money.” Learned Senior Counsel would submit that there is no scope for allowing an application for amendment unless the requirements of the proviso are satisfied. He would also point out that the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Revanna v. Anjanamma and others, was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Hathising Shah and Another v. Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi and others, reported in 2019 (5) SCC 360.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

J Subba Reddy vs Y V Narasimham on 15 July, 2022

8. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in M.Revanna vs. Anjanamma (Dead) by L.Rs was dealing with a matter, wherein the Trial Court allowed an application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI, Rule 17 of 3 (2019) 4 SCC 332 4 (2019) 5 SCC 360 5 NJS, J crp_420_2021 CPC. On challenge, the High Court set aside the same and the matter was carried by way of further appeal to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court by the unsuccessful plaintiff. While confirming the Order of the High Court at Para 7 of the said Judgment the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - N Jayasurya - Full Document

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

In a recent judgment in the case of M. Revanna Vs. Anjanamma & Ors.1, it has been held that after commencement of trial amendment of pleadings is not permissible except under conditions stated in the proviso and the burden is on the person seeking the amendment after commencement of trial to show "due diligence" on his part as contemplated under the proviso. The relevant observations in the judgment are as follows:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - Y K Srivastava - Full Document

Navneet Prasad vs Rameshwar Saha @ Tuntun Babu on 18 July, 2025

"9. This Court in M. Revanna v. Anjanamma (Dead) by legal representatives and others opined that an application for amendment may be rejected if it seeks to introduce totally different, new and inconsistent case or changes the fundamental character of the suit. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. prevents an application for amendment after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the issue. The burden is on the party seeking amendment after commencement of trial to show that in spite of due diligence such amendment could not be sought earlier. It is not a matter of right. Paragraph No. 7 thereof is extracted below:
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A K Jha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next