1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.948/2011 Shri Vinod R. Dubey VERSUS Chandlal L. Tilwa and another. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 15 , 2011 . Heard Shri Rathod, the learned counsel for the Respondent no.1. The Executing Court did not commit any error in allowing the amendment application filed by the respondent no. 1 and permitting the respondent no. 1 to claim the relief of possession by the proposed amendment. It is necessary to note that a suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent no. 1 against the respondent no. 2 and the same was decreed. The matter was pending before the Executing Court and the warrant of possession was also executed on 13.11.2009. After the execution proceedings were culminated, the petitioner filed a review application before the Executing Court. The Executing Court rightly held that the amendment application should be allowed as the said amendment seeking possession of the property could have been allowed at any stage of the proceedings. In this regard, it would be necessary to consider the proviso to Sec. 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act of 1963 which states that the court 2 should at any stage of the proceedings allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint when the plaintiff has not claimed the relief of refund of amount or possession by the plaint. In view of the specific provisions of Sec. 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, it is clear that the trial court was justified in allowing the amendment application. The judgments reported in AIR 1996 SC page 642, AIR 1997 SC page 772 and 2001(4) Mh.L.J. Page 469 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. The judgment reported in 2001(4) Mh.L.J. 469 lays down that the relief for possession cannot be granted unless it is specifically prayed for. Such is not the case here. The relief of possession is specifically prayed for by the proposed amendment and in view of the provisions of section 22 of the Act of 1963, the court had allowed the amendment application. Similarly, the judgments reported in AIR 1996 SC 642 and AIR 1997SC 772 are also distinguishable on facts as in both the cases the relief sought by the amendment application was clearly barred by limitation. Such is also not the case here. Section 22 of the Act of 1963 empowers the court to allow the amendment at any stage of the proceedings. Since there is no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan