Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.31 seconds)Baldev Singh & Ors. Etc vs Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc on 3 August, 2006
In any view of the matter, in the facts of the "Baldev Singh
v. Manohar Singh" (referred supra) the trial was not yet
commenced. Therefore, the Apex Court allowed the petition filed
3
(2005) 4 SCC 480
4
AIR 2009 SC 1433
MSM,J
crp_2682_2018
6
under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. as the proposed amendment is
pre-trial amendment.
Vidyabai & Ors vs Padmalatha & Anr on 12 December, 2008
In the present case, the petitioner was
advised to file petition only when the petitioner preparing the
affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of C.P.C., in such case, the trial
is deemed to have commenced in view of the law laid down by the
Apex Court in "Vidyabai v. Padmalatha" (referred supra), and the
affidavit is totally silent as to the exercise of due diligence by the
petitioner before commencement of trial.
J.Samuel & Ors vs Gattu Mhesh & Ors on 16 January, 2012
In view of the law declared by this Court in "J. Samuel v.
Gattu Mahesh" (referred supra), to exercise power under Order VI
Rule 17 C.P.C. to grant leave to amend the pleadings after
commencement of trial, the petitioner has to establish that despite
exercise of due diligence, he could not bring those facts on record
before commencement of trial.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ma Shwe Mya vs Maung Mo Hnaung on 26 January, 1921
On the strength of the principles laid down in the said
judgment and observations made in paragraph No.8 of the
judgment with the approval of "Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo
Hnaung2" the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
power under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. has to be exercised
liberally, but nonetheless no power has yet been given to enable
one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another, nor to
change, by means of amendment, the subject matter of the suit
and the Apex Court also made several observations with reference
to proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. Learned counsel for the
petitioner requested to allow the revision.
Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs M/S. S.K.Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. &Anr on 14 May, 2008
Similarly, in "Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs M/S.
S.K.Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd6", the Apex Court laid down the
5
2012 (2) SCC 300
6
2008 (14) SCC 364
MSM,J
crp_2682_2018
7
following conditions to grant application for amendment subject to
certain conditions:
Kailash vs Nanhku & Ors on 6 April, 2005
This principle was considered by the Full Bench of the Apex
Court in "Kailash v. Nanhku3" and held as follows.
1