Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.27 seconds)Baldev Singh & Ors. Etc vs Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc on 3 August, 2006
Therefore the principle laid down in Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh
(referred supra) is no more good law, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in
Kailash v. Nankhu (referred supra).
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent And Eviction) Control Act, 1960
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Precious Finance Investment Pvt. Ltd. on 20 October, 2006
19. The word "due diligence" is not exactly defined by the Act, but in Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Precious Finance Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2006 (6)
BomCR 510, the Apex Court held as follows:
Chander Kanta Bansal vs Rajinder Singh Anand on 11 March, 2008
In view of the tests laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred
supra as to what amounts to exercise of 'due diligence', the petitioner in the
present case did not aver anything in the entire affidavit as to how she exercised
due diligence and despite exercise of due diligence, she could not bring those
facts on record before commencement of trial. When the petitioner did not raise
such plea in the affidavit filed along with this petition, the question of
substantiating the same does not arise and in fact, both the parties went into
trial, despite denial of title of this petitioner by the respondents about 10 years
ago. Suggestions were also put to the witnesses denying the title of the
petitioner. But, they did not open their eyes and slept over for a considerable
13
NJS, J
crp_291_2022
period of time and when defendants witnesses are to be cross- examined, the
petitioner realized the mistake she committed in seeking relief and filed petition
under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C to raise a plea that the document sued upon is
fabricated, though a specific plea is raised that the document is created one,
without explaining as to how she exercised due diligence and failed to take such
steps.
M.Revanna vs Anjanamma (Dead) By Lrs. on 14 February, 2019
16. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in M.Revanna vs. Anjanamma
(Dead) by L.Rs6 was dealing with a matter, wherein the Trial Court
allowed an application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI, Rule 17 of
CPC. On challenge, the High Court set aside the same and the matter was
carried by way of appeal to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court by the
unsuccessful Plaintiff. While confirming the Order of the High Court at
Para 7 of the said Judgment, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
So with the amendment of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and
introduction of proviso, the petitioner seeking amendment after
commencement of trial shall, convince the Court that inspite of due
diligence, he could not have raised the matter before commencement of
trial. So in my considered opinion, the yardstick for considering the
amendment petition filed after commencement of trial is not only
whether a separate suit on same facts and for same relief is not time
barred as laid down in Sampath Kumar2, but also whether the petitioner
could show plausible cause that inspite of due diligence, he could not
raise the matter before commencement of the trial. So to sum up, the
amendment petition filed after commencement of trial no doubt can be
considered, provided, the petitioner could establish that inspite of
exercising due diligence he could not file the petition before
commencement of the trial and a separate suit on same cause of action
for the same relief could be maintainable. In the instant case, as already
observed, the petitioner could not show any plausible cause for the
inordinate delay. Hence the petition merits no consideration."