https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198006 The court held that the trial court erred in allowing the amendment to the plaint after the trial had commenced without considering the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Emphasizing the need for due diligence, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the proposed amendment could not have been raised before the trial commenced. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's order allowing the amendment and dismissed the plaintiff's application for amendment, allowing the revision petition. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. en-us Thu, 28 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jan 2018 13:02:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198006 The court held that the trial court erred in allowing the amendment to the plaint after the trial had commenced without considering the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Emphasizing the need for due diligence, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the proposed amendment could not have been raised before the trial commenced. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's order allowing the amendment and dismissed the plaintiff's application for amendment, allowing the revision petition. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 28 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198006