Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.47 seconds)Mohinder Kumar Mehra vs Roop Rani Mehra on 11 December, 2017
7. It is an undisputed fact that the suit was field for partition of
the plaint schedule properties in the year 2009 and the trial was
already commenced now the suit is coming for examination of DW.2.
After examining PW.1, the petition was filed, but disposed of at the
stage when DW.2's evidence is to be recorded. However, the trial has
already commenced, as admitted by both counsel. But, the only
question is whether respondent No.1 herein exercised due diligence in
failure to bring those facts before commencement of trial, before the
trial Court. But, as seen from the order under challenge, the trial
Court did not record the reason strictly adhering to proviso to Order
VI, Rule 17 of the Code introduced by Act 22 of 2002. Even in
Mohinder Kumar Mehra's case, the same principle was reiterated,
but what is meaning of 'due diligence' was not explained anywhere
1
.
J.Samuel & Ors vs Gattu Mhesh & Ors on 16 January, 2012
2018 (1) ALT 27 (SC)
4
MSM,J
CRP No.2396 of 2018
except in the judgment in J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh2, wherein the
Supreme Court laid down certain tests as to what is 'due diligence'
with reference to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C and proviso thereto and held
as follows:
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1