WPMS 1591/2006 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Siddhartha Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Ramji Srivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 to 15. In a suit for specific performance which remained pending for 22 years, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. praying for the amendment of the plaint. The amendment sought was that during the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiff has raised construction after the vendor has given possession to the plaintiff. This application was rejected on the ground that the plaintiff did not seek any relief of possession and consequently, the amendment indicating that possession was given by the vendor to the plaintiff cannot be incorporated in the plaint. In the opinion of the Court, in a suit for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, if the relief of possession has not been prayed for, then the question of amendment of the plaint does not arise. The trial court as well as the revisional court was justified in rejecting the amendment. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Certified copy of this order shall be sent by the registry to the court below within two weeks from today for necessary information and action. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 27-12-2011 SP