<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (12) TMI 723 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171112</link>
    <description>Amendment of a written statement after commencement of trial is barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC unless the applicant shows due diligence and that the matter could not have been raised earlier. Trial commences when issues are framed and the case is set down for recording evidence, including filing of examination-in-chief by affidavit. On the stated facts, the proposed amendments were already within the defendants&#039; knowledge, due diligence was not shown, and the trial court&#039;s refusal to permit amendment was consistent with the statutory restriction. Interference by the High Court without identifying any error of law or jurisdiction was unsustainable, and the amendment was not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 723 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171112</link>
      <description>Amendment of a written statement after commencement of trial is barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC unless the applicant shows due diligence and that the matter could not have been raised earlier. Trial commences when issues are framed and the case is set down for recording evidence, including filing of examination-in-chief by affidavit. On the stated facts, the proposed amendments were already within the defendants&#039; knowledge, due diligence was not shown, and the trial court&#039;s refusal to permit amendment was consistent with the statutory restriction. Interference by the High Court without identifying any error of law or jurisdiction was unsustainable, and the amendment was not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>