IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4336 of 2009 Petition under Section ____ of CPC., to revise/against the order dated ______ in NO : of 0 on the file of the court of the Between: A. Madhava Achary S/o A. Ramakrishna Achary R/o D.No. 12-123, bazaar Street Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND N. Srrenivasan S/o N. Ramachandraiah Chetty R/o Nadyalams Saree Sadan O.T.K. Road Near Gurnatha Talkies, Chittoor District .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VENKATA RAMANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.PRASAD The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/CRP{TSSB} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4336 of 2009 ORDER: Heard both the counsel. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.158/2005 on the file of the Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor for specific performance of the contract. It is stated that pursuant to the oral agreement to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs, an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to the defendant by the plaintiff. Initially, the suit was filed only for the relief of specific performance of agreement without seeking any alternative relief of refund of advance amount. After four years of filing of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.464/2009 under Order VI Rule-7 CPC r/w.Sec.22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking alternative relief of refund of advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 28.01.2002, in the event of denying the relief of specific performance of contract. The Court below dismissed the said application on the ground that the relief is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said order, this civil revision petition is filed. The Court below has failed to consider the proviso under Sec.22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 while rejecting the said application, wherein alternative relief was provided. Under Sec.22 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act a specific relief has to be asked for even including the relief of refund of earnest money deposit, and without asking specific plea, the relief provided under sub-clauses (1) and (b) of Sec.22(1) cannot be granted. However, it is provided that wherein the plaintiff has not claimed any such relief in the plaint, he is entitled to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just, at any stage of the proceedings, and if any such claim is made seeking alternative remedy, such application shall be allowed. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order of the Court below in rejecting the application of the petitioner/plaintiff to amend the plaint on the ground that it is barred by time is contrary to law. Having regard to the facts of the case, the impugned order of the Court below is set aside and the I.A.464/2009 stands allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) payable by the petitioner/plaintiff to the counsel, appearing for the respondent herein, within a period of two weeks from today. The Court below is directed to dispose of the main suit itself, as expeditiously as possible, on priority basis. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 09.10.2009 Dsr Note: Furnish copy in two days B/o Dsr