Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.57 seconds)
P Lingamma Died 3 Others vs K Laxmamma on 2 November, 2018 cites

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 petitioners have to establish that 5 2008 (14) SCC 364 MSM,J CRP_4684_2017 9 despite exercise of due diligence, they could not bring those facts on record before commencement of trial. But, here, in this case, the petitioners were aware about the employment of late Ashanna before commencement of trial and on the other hand, in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, the petitioners themselves specifically stated that, they orally briefed their counsel to raise a plea about the amendment of late Ashanna. But, he could not raise such plea in the written statement before the Court below. Therefore, it compelled the petitioners to raise a specific plea after commencement of trial which cannot be permitted, unless it is established to the satisfaction of the Court that the petitioners despite exercise of due diligence, they could not bring those facts on record by amendment of plaint before commencement of trail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 429 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

State Of A.P. & Ors vs M/S. Pioneer Builders, A.P on 25 September, 2006

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, as a matter of course, if it is pre-trial amendment and if it is post trial amendment, the petitioner has to explain the reason for failure to bring those facts on record before commencement of trial. But, here the petitioners allegedly came to know about retirement of late Ashanna from service in South Central Railway only subsequent to filing of written statement. Therefore, despite exercise of due diligence, the said fact was not brought on record before commencement of trial, as such there is no absolute bar from granting leave to amend the plaint, under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C and placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Pioneers Builders1 in support of his contention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 72 - D K Jain - Full Document

State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru on 4 August, 2005

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court cannot exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when the order impugned in the revision is passed within the 6 AIR 2005 SC 3820 MSM,J CRP_4684_2017 12 jurisdictional limits, since the power can be exercised only to keep the subordinate Courts and Tribunals within its bounds.
Supreme Court of India Cites 180 - Cited by 1292 - P V Reddi - Full Document
1   2 Next