***

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) –

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.12.2025, vide which, the application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) filed by the respondent/appellant has been allowed.

2. Briefly, respondent/appellant filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance for agreement to sell dated 03.08.2015. Suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. The Court refused to grant specific performance of the agreement but ordered recovery of Rs.2,40,000/- along with interest. Respondent/appellant preferred appeal, during the pendency of the appeal. An application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was moved for amendment of plaint seeking specifically the relief of refund of the earnest money. The application was allowed vide impugned order. The order has been assailed in the present revision petition.

3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record carefully.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable as the learned Appellate Court has not taken care of the fact that the amendment sought is barred by limitation and by allowing the amendment of the plaint or relief claimed barred by limitation has been allowed to be adjudicated. He contended that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Jagdev Singh versus Gursewak Singh, 2015 (4) PLR 234, the relief could not have been allowed and application deserves to be dismissed.

5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Appellate Court has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances and allowed the application in view of the provisions of Section 22 (1) and (2) of Specific Relief Act and has relied upon the law laid down by this Court in Radha Raman Sharma versus Raj Kumar, 2024 (4) RCR (Civil), 485.

6. Section 22 (1) and (2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are reproduced as under:-

22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of earnest money, etc.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), any person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property may, in an appropriate case, ask for—

(a) possession, or partition and separate possession, of the property, in addition to such performance; or

(b) any other relief to which he may be entitled, including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or made by him, in case his claim for specific performance is refused.

(2) No relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed:

Provided that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such relief in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief.

7. Perusal of the provisions of Section 22 (1) and (2) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 clearly shows that the application for amendment of the plaint seeking a relief regarding the refund of earnest money or deposit made has to be allowed at any stage of the proceedings. Furthermore, perusal of the plaint, copy of which is available on record, clearly shows that in para No.5 of the original plaint, plaintiff has specifically sought the decree for recovery of Rs.20,00,000/- double the amount of earnest money in the alternative though inadvertently, the same could not be sought in the prayer clause, so, considering all the facts and circumstances, the learned First Appellate Court has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. There is no illegality or perversity committed by learned First Appellate Court while exercising the jurisdiction vested in it, as such, the interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction is not required. The instant petition stands dismissed accordingly.

8. As a natural corollary, since the main case stands dismissed, all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, as no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them pending.

Petition dismissed.

********