Civil Revision No. 5586 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5586 of 2011 Date of Decision: 14.9.2011 Suraj Bhan ... Petitioner Versus Smt. Suman Lata and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by defendant No.1-Suraj Bhan to the suit aggrieved against the impugned order dated 8.8.2011 (Annexure P3), passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, whereby an application, filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2, to amend the plaint, was accepted. The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 11.11.2006. By filing an application under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 151 CPC, the plaintiff intended to introduce the following amendments in the plaint:- “2...The suit of plaintiff is not decree as per agreement to sale dated 11.11.2006, then the plaintiffs are liable to entitle to recover the amount of Civil Revision No. 5586 of 2011 2 ` 10 lacs from the defendant No.1 along with interest 24% and other expenses...” Mr. Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner/defendant No.1 has filed a written statement, wherein it was categorically stated that no earnest money was received and an amount of ` 5,00,000 was advanced as a loan. He has further submitted that remedy for the plaintiffs was to file a suit for recovery and not to seek amendment in the plaint. The plaintiffs have set out a clear case for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 11.11.2006 praying that the defendant/petitioner be directed to execute the sale deed in their favour qua the suit property. An alternative plea could not be taken at the first instance. Mr. Ahlawat has submitted that the plaintiffs were not diligent enough to introduce the amendment earlier and after the commencement of the trial such a course is not permissible. The trial Court, while allowing the amendment, has stated that if the proposed amendment in the relief clause is not allowed, it would defeat the very purpose of filing of the suit and such an amendment will not cause prejudice. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that in the suit for specific performance, a prayer for grant of alternative relief is also normally made. It seems that due to inadvertence or oversight, such a plea could not be introduced in the prayer clause of the plaint. It has been rightly held by the Court that by introducing alternative prayer, no prejudice will be caused to the Civil Revision No. 5586 of 2011 3 plaintiffs/respondents. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 14, 2011 “DK”