1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.632 OF 2009. The State of Maharashtra and others ... Appellants. Versus M/s Nirmal Builders through its proprietor Mrs.Devangere Nirmala Kotraih ... Respondent. ... Mr.S.D.Kaldate, A.G.P. for the State. Mr.L.B.Pallod, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 03.12.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard learned A.G.P. and learned counsel. 2. Admittedly, the Respondent is a 2 contractor and was assigned construction work by the appellant No.2. He had submitted the tender which was accepted by the appellant No.2. The Respondent was required to complete the work of construction of a road under the Employment Guarantee Scheme. It appears that the contract was terminated by the appellants in the middle. According to the Respondent, he was ready to complete the work within stipulated period but there were difficulties because of non- determination of the royalty in respect of the material which was to be collected from a quarry. He challenged the termination notice which also contemplated forfeiture of the earnest deposit The trial Court dismissed the suit (RCS No. 417/2003). However, the first appellate Court partly decreed the suit with direction to refund the security deposited and also amount of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand) deposited by the Respondent on 7.3.2003. 3. It is undisputed that the tender work was thereafter given to some other contractor and construction of the road is completed. The first 3 appellate Court, therefore, held that the plaintiff/Respondent is not entitled to seek mandatory injunction. 4. The findings of the first appellate Court are based on material which was placed on record and on appreciation of rival contention. It is pertinent to note that after termination of the contractual work, the appellants did not seek any compensation from the Respondent on account of alleged breach of contract by him. The question is whether the amount deposited by the Respondent could be forfeited. It was only a security deposited and not earnest money. The security deposit can not be forfeited unilaterally. The first appellate Court considered the difficulties expressed by the Respondent regarding the absence of payment of royalty for the material which was to be taken out from a quarry. Considering the relevant aspects, the refund of the security deposit and other amount is directed. It is the money of the Respondent which he is entitled to get back. It is true that injunction is also clamped to 4 restrain the appellants from taking any action in pursuance to the letter dated 11.7.2003. However, no action was taken by the appellants since issuance of the said letter and if at all any action is to be taken then also it would be barred by limitation and as such whether such relief is granted or not, it would be immaterial. Mr.Kaldate, learned A.G.P. strenuously argued that the Respondent (plaintiff) had not asked for the relief in respect of refund of the money and yet, it was granted and, therefore, it is necessary to consider the Second Appeal on the question as to Whether such relief could have been granted without asking for. I do not agree. On plain reading of Section 22(1) of the Specific Relief Act, it is amply clear that in an appropriate case, the relief which flows from the main relief of declaration can be considered by the Court. It can be granted even U/o VII Rule 7 of the C.P.C. if the Court finds that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. The only error committed by the first appellate Court is in respect of omission to recover the Court fees as required on the monetary claim which is 5 granted. The first appellate Court is directed to recover the Court fees as would be taxed on the additional reliefs which are granted. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/sa63209