Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)

J.Samuel & Ors vs Gattu Mhesh & Ors on 16 January, 2012

If within the time allowed, the subject matter of the suit is not valued in accordance with the Court's decision or if the deficit fee is not paid, the plaint shall be rejected and the Court shall pass such order as it deems just regarding costs of the suit. Therefore, no specific plea is required to be raised by these petitioners by amending the written statement at this stage of adducing defendants' evidence i.e., after commencement of trial. Apart from that, there is a clear interdict to claim such relief in view of bar to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., which 3 prohibits entertaining an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the pleadings, unless, the petitioner satisfies the Court that the petitioner exercised due diligence but failed to bring those facts on record. What is due diligence is defined by the Apex Court in between J.Samuel & Others vs. Gattu Mahesh & Others in Civil Appeal No.561 of 2012.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 429 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Precious Finance Investment Pvt. Ltd. on 20 October, 2006

Due diligence is also defined in between Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs. Precious Finance Investment Private Limited1 In the first judgment, the Supreme Court, while dealing with an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint, allowed the Civil Appeal holding that the respondents therein have not exercised due diligence. Even in the absence of any such plea, the Court is under an obligation to decide the appropriate Court fee under Section 11 of the Act and therefore, the proposed amendment is not necessary for deciding the real controversy. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 19 - D B Bhosale - Full Document
1