https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199929 A plaint for specific performance could not be amended after trial had concluded and the matter was reserved for judgment, because Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits post-trial amendment only on a showing of due diligence. The omission to plead readiness and willingness was not a mere typographical error; it was the absence of a mandatory foundational averment under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. As the party failed to explain why the plea could not have been raised earlier, the amendment was impermissible and the trial court correctly refused it. The High Court erred in interfering with that refusal. en-us Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:21:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199929 A plaint for specific performance could not be amended after trial had concluded and the matter was reserved for judgment, because Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits post-trial amendment only on a showing of due diligence. The omission to plead readiness and willingness was not a mere typographical error; it was the absence of a mandatory foundational averment under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. As the party failed to explain why the plea could not have been raised earlier, the amendment was impermissible and the trial court correctly refused it. The High Court erred in interfering with that refusal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199929