Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for K. Umapathy VS A. C. Abraham Kinsely...
2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 3557 : The Supreme Court held that an amendment petition for the plaint, filed at the stage of arguments after the conclusion of trial, cannot be allowed to stand, as there was no due diligence shown by the plaintiff in moving the application for amendment before the commencement of trial. The Court emphasized that such late amendments are not permissible when they are made after the trial has concluded, particularly when the party failed to act promptly in bringing the matter before the court earlier.Checking relevance for S. Arumugam, S/o. Sonai VS Sathy, W/o. Shanmugam, Velipattinam, Ramanathapuram...
2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 799 : The bar to allow amendment of pleadings after the commencement of the trial is conditional and can be allowed if the party could not have raised the matter before the trial, and the loss occasioned can be compensated by imposing suitable cost.Checking relevance for Ruby Esther Mary VS Dominic Xavier @ Thomuni...
2006 0 Supreme(Mad) 2658 : An amendment petition after the trial has commenced can only be allowed if the court concludes that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The court must be satisfied that the proposed amendment will not nullify the advantage accrued to the other party and should not be sought to get away from earlier pleadings. The amendment must also not change the character of the suit. The party seeking amendment must specifically state reasons for the belated filing, and the trial court must examine these reasons and render a finding on due diligence. Failure to do so constitutes an illegality.Checking relevance for Sarammal VS S. Dilshad Begum and others...
2004 0 Supreme(Mad) 581 : The trial court allowed an amendment petition (I.A.No.516 of 2000) filed 16 years after the suit was initiated, ruling that the proposed amendments did not set up a new case or alter the nature of the original suit. The court permitted the amendment despite the significant delay, ordering a cost of Rs. 1,000 as a consequence of the delay. This establishes that amendments to the plaint can be allowed after the trial has commenced, provided they do not fundamentally change the case or introduce new claims.Checking relevance for S. Rajendran VS K. Kanniah & Others...
2010 0 Supreme(Mad) 298 : Under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., an amendment petition after the trial has commenced is not maintainable unless the court is satisfied that the party seeking amendment could not file it before the commencement of trial despite due diligence. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. restricts the court''''s power to allow amendments after trial begins, and such amendments can only be entertained if the party establishes that, despite due diligence, they were unable to file the petition earlier. The court must be convinced that the amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties, does not cause injustice to the other side, and does not affect rights already accrued to the defendants. This principle was affirmed in several Supreme Court judgments, including Peethani Suryanarayana v. Repaka Venakta Ramana Kishore, North Eastern Railway Administration v. Bhagwan Das, and Vidyabai v. Padmalatha.
