TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court emphasizes due diligence in civil suit amendments, citing precedents. Essential facts & timing crucial.</h1> <h3>Smt. Suryakanta Ishwar Lohkare and Ors. Versus Smt. Annapurna Nilkanth Shende and Manoj Jaiswal</h3> The Court upheld the rejection of the amendment application in a civil suit, emphasizing the importance of due diligence in post-commencement amendments. ... - Issues involved: The judgment involves the challenge to the rejection of an application for amendment of a written statement filed in a civil suit after the commencement of trial.Details of the judgment:1. The trial court rejected the application for amendment of the written statement after finding that the amendment was not necessary for the adjudication of the suit and could have been raised before the commencement of the trial.2. The petitioner relied on various decisions, including Rajesh Kumar Agrawal's case, emphasizing that courts should allow necessary amendments to determine the real controversy between the parties without causing injustice.3. The petitioner argued that amendments in written statements should be allowed liberally at any stage of the suit, distinguishing between amendments in the plaint and written statement.4. The court analyzed the cited decisions and found that due diligence is crucial for amendments after the commencement of trial, as highlighted in the decision of Walchandnagar Industries Limited v. Indraprastha Developers. The court emphasized that due diligence must be shown to justify post-commencement amendments.5. Referring to the decision in Vidyabai's case, the court reiterated that without recording a finding on due diligence, the court lacks jurisdiction to allow or reject amendments made after the commencement of trial.6. The court concluded that the application for amendment lacked due diligence as the necessary facts were known when the original written statement was filed, and the proposed events did not occur during the suit's pendency or after the trial began.7. The petitioner's argument regarding protecting the rights of a minor through the proposed amendment was dismissed as the plea could have been raised earlier, and no valid case was made in the application for amendment.In conclusion, the court upheld the rejection of the amendment application, emphasizing the importance of due diligence and the necessity of demonstrating the need for post-commencement amendments in civil suits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
