Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Pramod Kumar Sharma vs Smt.Vimla Devi on 21 June, 2019 cites

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

"11. The original provision was deleted by Amendment Act 46 of 1999, however, it has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being 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 above proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. At present, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, it could not have been sought earlier. The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This Court, in a series of decisions has held that the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceeding in the interest of justice. The main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation and the plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in the light of the facts and 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No.1229/2019 circumstances of each case. The above principles have been reiterated by this Court in J. Samuel & Others v. Gattu Mahesh and Others, (2012) 2 SCC 300 and Rameshkumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports (P) Ltd. and Others, (2012) 5 SCC 337.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 429 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Rameshkumar Agarwal vs Rajmala Exports P.Ltd.& Ors on 30 March, 2012

"11. The original provision was deleted by Amendment Act 46 of 1999, however, it has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being 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 above proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. At present, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, it could not have been sought earlier. The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This Court, in a series of decisions has held that the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceeding in the interest of justice. The main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation and the plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in the light of the facts and 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No.1229/2019 circumstances of each case. The above principles have been reiterated by this Court in J. Samuel & Others v. Gattu Mahesh and Others, (2012) 2 SCC 300 and Rameshkumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports (P) Ltd. and Others, (2012) 5 SCC 337.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 46 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1