CR No. 6961 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6961 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 26.10.2010 Jai Bhagwan ......petitioner vs. M/s Gupta Trading Company and another ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioner HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Defendant is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by learned first Appellate Court on 15.10.2010 whereby the plaintiff- respondent has been permitted to amend the plaint and claim alternative remedy of damages in its suit for specific performance. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 3.12.2002. Learned trial Court passed a decree for an amount of Rs. 11.00 lacs along with future interest @ 6% per annum. In an appeal filed by the defendant, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint so as to claim the alternative relief of damages in such suit for specific performance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since the plaintiff has not claimed alternative relief of damages, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend the suit and that too in appeal and after 7 years of filing of the suit. CR No. 6961 of 2010 -2- I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff has sought decree for specific performance of the agreement. The Court has its discretion not to specifically enforce the agreement and grant decree for recovery of this amount of earnest money in terms of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. However, the plaintiff had filed suit for recovery of the damages alone, the plaintiff could not be permitted to claim decree for specific performance in view of the Divison Bench judgment of this Court 1990(2) PLR 384, Roop Chand Chaudhari vs. Smt. Ranjit Kumari. But the converse is not true. The plaintiff has claimed decree for specific performance. The Court has the jurisdiction to grant alternative relief of damages. Therefore, the plaintiff has been rightly permitted to amend the plaint so as to claim alternative relief though the Court has always the jurisdiction to grant relief of damages in a suit for specific performance. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court which may warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Revision stands dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 27.10.2010 preeti