Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an amendment to the plaint could be allowed after commencement of trial in the absence of a showing that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before trial.
Analysis: The suit was instituted after the amended procedural regime came into force, so the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 applied. Once trial had commenced, the burden lay on the party seeking amendment to establish due diligence and inability to raise the proposed plea earlier. On the facts, the plaintiff had earlier opportunities to seek the present reliefs, including when an earlier amendment was filed, but did not do so. The proposed amendment would also alter the nature of the suit. The trial court permitted the amendment without addressing the statutory embargo in the proviso or recording a finding on due diligence, thereby exercising jurisdiction contrary to law. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 was available to correct that error.
Conclusion: The amendment was not permissible after commencement of trial, and the order allowing it was liable to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed, the amendment application was dismissed, and the trial court's order permitting amendment was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: After commencement of trial, an amendment of pleadings can be allowed only if the applicant pleads and proves that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised before trial.