Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.44 seconds)M.Revanna vs Anjanamma (Dead) By Lrs. on 14 February, 2019
7. I am not persuaded by the aforesaid submission. The suit is already
almost 10 years old. The written statement was filed about 7 years before
the application was made for amendment. By this time, the suit had
progressed to the stage of petitioner's evidence. The proviso to Order VI
Rule 17 of the CPC, inserted by the 2002 amendment, clearly requires the
Court to examine whether a proposed amendment, sought after
commencement of trial, is belated despite due diligence of the party. Only if
the party is able to show that the amendment could not have been sought
prior to commencement of trial, despite such diligence, would the
amendment be permissible. The Supreme Court in M. Revanna vs.
Anjanamma & Ors., (2019) 4 SCC 332 has explained the effect of the
proviso to Order VI Rule 17 in the following terms:-
Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. & ... vs Ladha Ram & Co on 23 September, 1976
9. There is another good reason for the denial of the application. The
original written statement contains clear admissions that the sum of
₹12,00,000/- was "taken" by the defendant from the plaintiff through two
cheques as a personal loan. The amendment, inasmuch as the defendant
now seeks to plead that these cheques were never encashed, in fact, is
CM(M) 1069/2019
Page 6 of 8
directly contrary to the said admission. When it is pleaded that an amount
of money has been "taken" by the defendant by means of cheques, it is
implicit that the cheques were encashed. To permit an amendment with the
consequences of a party retracting from an admission made in pleadings is
not permissible. Reference may be made to Modi Spinning & Weaving
Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Ladha Ram & Co., (1976) 4 SCC 320, wherein it was
held as follows:-
M/S. Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs M/S. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors on 9 October, 2009
10. The judgments of the Supreme Court, including in Revajeetu
Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons & Ors. (2009) 10
SCC 84, clearly lay down the parameters within which amendments can be
granted, which are reproduced below:
1