https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196649 An amendment sought after commencement of trial was refused because the applicants did not show due diligence, the proposed pleading would have transformed a declaration-and-injunction suit into one for specific performance and possession, and the new claim was already barred by limitation on the existing pleadings. The court noted that the amendment application did not explain why reliefs such as specific performance, readiness and willingness, possession, and revised valuation had not been pleaded earlier. Since the amendment would have introduced a distinct cause of action and altered the basic nature of the suit, while limitation could not be deferred to justify it, the order allowing amendment was unsustainable and the application had to be rejected. en-us Wed, 25 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:21:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196649 An amendment sought after commencement of trial was refused because the applicants did not show due diligence, the proposed pleading would have transformed a declaration-and-injunction suit into one for specific performance and possession, and the new claim was already barred by limitation on the existing pleadings. The court noted that the amendment application did not explain why reliefs such as specific performance, readiness and willingness, possession, and revised valuation had not been pleaded earlier. Since the amendment would have introduced a distinct cause of action and altered the basic nature of the suit, while limitation could not be deferred to justify it, the order allowing amendment was unsustainable and the application had to be rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 25 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196649