Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.60 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Insurance (Amendment) Act, 2002
Vijay Hathising Shah vs Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi . on 25 February, 2019
16. A similar view was taken in the case of Vijay Hathising Shah & Anr. Vs. Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi & Ors.2 wherein the order passed the High Court setting aside the order of the Trial Court rejecting the amendment application was held to be unsustainable and the order of the Trial Court was restored. The observations made in the judgment are as follows:-
M.Revanna vs Anjanamma (Dead) By Lrs. on 14 February, 2019
In a recent judgment in the case of M. Revanna Vs. Anjanamma & Ors.1, it has been held that after commencement of trial amendment of pleadings is not permissible except under conditions stated in the proviso and the burden is on the person seeking the amendment after commencement of trial to show "due diligence" on his part as contemplated under the proviso. The relevant observations in the judgment are as follows:-
Radhey Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors on 26 February, 2015
The relevant observations made in the aforementioned judgment of Radhey Shyam (supra) are as follows:-
Chander Kanta Bansal vs Rajinder Singh Anand on 11 March, 2008
23. ...The entire object of the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 as introduced in 2002 is to stall filing of application for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and that the parties had sufficient knowledge of other's case. It also helps checking the delays in filing the applications. [Vide Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha [(2005) 7 SCC 534], Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. [(2006) 12 SCC 1], Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand [(2008) 5 SCC 117], Rajkumar Gurawara v. S.K. Sarwagi and Co. (P) Ltd. [(2008) 14 SCC 364], Vidyabai v. Padmalatha [(2009) 2 SCC 409 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 563] and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha [(2010) 10 SCC 512 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 239]."
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
26. The Bench in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai [(2003) 6 SCC 675] also observed in para 25 of its judgment that distinction between Articles 226 and 227 stood almost obliterated. In para 24 of the said judgment distinction in the two articles has been noted. In view thereof, observation that scope of Article 226 and 227 was obliterated was not correct as rightly observed by the referring Bench in Para 32 quoted above. We make it clear that though despite the curtailment of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC by Act 46 of 1999, jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 remains unaffected, it has been wrongly assumed in certain quarters that the said jurisdiction has been expanded.