Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.45 seconds)Vidyabai & Ors vs Padmalatha & Anr on 12 December, 2008
23. Though the counsel for the appellants have cited many decisions, on
perusal, we are of the view that some of those cases have been decided
prior to the insertion of Order 6 Rule 17 with proviso or on the peculiar
facts of that case. This Court in various decisions upheld the power that in
deserving cases, the Court can allow delayed amendment by
compensating the other side by awarding costs. The entire object of the
amendment to Order 6 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. Ramlatha1, Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey v.
Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N.2, Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh
Anand3, Rajkumar Gurawara v. S.K. Sarwagi and Co. (P) Ltd.4, Vidyabai
v. Padmalatha5 and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha6.]
J.Samuel & Ors vs Gattu Mhesh & Ors on 16 January, 2012
Procedure would play only after the stage of commencement of
evidence in the case. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the
evidence had been completed at the time when Ext.P4 application for
amendment was moved by the plaintiff. Then, the issue is as to
whether the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to get the benefit of the
exception as envisaged in the said proviso. If the petitioner/plaintiff is
able to establish that in spite of due diligence he could not have raised
the matter before the commencement of trial, then, certainly, his plea
for amendment could be ordered to be reconsidered by this Court.
The concept of due diligence, as envisaged in the said proviso to
Order VI Rule 17, has been elaborately considered by the apex court
in J. Samuel & others v. Gattu Mahesh & Others [2012 (2) SCC
300]. It is profitable to refer to paragraphs 15 to 25 of the said
judgment of the apex court, which reads as follows;
Aniglase Yohannan vs Ramlatha And Ors on 23 September, 2005
23. Though the counsel for the appellants have cited many decisions, on
perusal, we are of the view that some of those cases have been decided
prior to the insertion of Order 6 Rule 17 with proviso or on the peculiar
facts of that case. This Court in various decisions upheld the power that in
deserving cases, the Court can allow delayed amendment by
compensating the other side by awarding costs. The entire object of the
amendment to Order 6 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. Ramlatha1, Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey v.
Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N.2, Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh
Anand3, Rajkumar Gurawara v. S.K. Sarwagi and Co. (P) Ltd.4, Vidyabai
v. Padmalatha5 and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha6.]
Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr vs Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors on 8 December, 2006
23. Though the counsel for the appellants have cited many decisions, on
perusal, we are of the view that some of those cases have been decided
prior to the insertion of Order 6 Rule 17 with proviso or on the peculiar
facts of that case. This Court in various decisions upheld the power that in
deserving cases, the Court can allow delayed amendment by
compensating the other side by awarding costs. The entire object of the
amendment to Order 6 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. Ramlatha1, Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey v.
Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N.2, Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh
Anand3, Rajkumar Gurawara v. S.K. Sarwagi and Co. (P) Ltd.4, Vidyabai
v. Padmalatha5 and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha6.]
Chander Kanta Bansal vs Rajinder Singh Anand on 11 March, 2008
23. Though the counsel for the appellants have cited many decisions, on
perusal, we are of the view that some of those cases have been decided
prior to the insertion of Order 6 Rule 17 with proviso or on the peculiar
facts of that case. This Court in various decisions upheld the power that in
deserving cases, the Court can allow delayed amendment by
compensating the other side by awarding costs. The entire object of the
amendment to Order 6 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. Ramlatha1, Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey v.
Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N.2, Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh
Anand3, Rajkumar Gurawara v. S.K. Sarwagi and Co. (P) Ltd.4, Vidyabai
v. Padmalatha5 and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha6.]
Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs M/S. S.K.Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. &Anr on 14 May, 2008
23. Though the counsel for the appellants have cited many decisions, on
perusal, we are of the view that some of those cases have been decided
prior to the insertion of Order 6 Rule 17 with proviso or on the peculiar
facts of that case. This Court in various decisions upheld the power that in
deserving cases, the Court can allow delayed amendment by
compensating the other side by awarding costs. The entire object of the
amendment to Order 6 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. Ramlatha1, Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey v.
Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N.2, Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh
Anand3, Rajkumar Gurawara v. S.K. Sarwagi and Co. (P) Ltd.4, Vidyabai
v. Padmalatha5 and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha6.]
Man Kaur(Dead)By Lrs vs Hartar Singh Sangha on 5 October, 2010
23. Though the counsel for the appellants have cited many decisions, on
perusal, we are of the view that some of those cases have been decided
prior to the insertion of Order 6 Rule 17 with proviso or on the peculiar
facts of that case. This Court in various decisions upheld the power that in
deserving cases, the Court can allow delayed amendment by
compensating the other side by awarding costs. The entire object of the
amendment to Order 6 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. Ramlatha1, Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey v.
Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N.2, Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh
Anand3, Rajkumar Gurawara v. S.K. Sarwagi and Co. (P) Ltd.4, Vidyabai
v. Padmalatha5 and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha6.]
Baldev Singh & Ors. Etc vs Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc on 3 August, 2006
6. It is now well established that the court may, at any stage of the
proceedings, allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings in
such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such
amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of
determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
However, this is always subject to the rider that serious prejudice or
injustice shall not be caused to the other side by allowing such plea
for amendment. This position is reflected in the operative portion of
Order VI Rule 17, which has undergone change after the introduction
of the proviso thereto as per the Amendment Act 22/2002. As per the
said proviso, no application for amendment shall be 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 trial. The rulings as reported in 2009
(2) SCC 409 paragraph 11 [Vidyabai & Others v. Padmalatha &
another] and 2006 (6) SCC 498, paragraph 17 [Baldev Singh &
others v. Manohar Singh & another] etc. provides that the bar
envisaged as per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
OP(C) No. 3538 of 2017
..4..
1