IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5489 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 28.02.2008 Shyam Lal Sohar ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.V.G.Dogra, Advocate vs. Deepak Mandal ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Rajesh Bansal, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.5.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint, moved by the petitioner-plaintiff has been dismissed. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance on 31.5.2000, alleging that vide an 'agreement to sell' dated 3.2.2000, the respondent agreed to sell the subject premises for a consideration of Rs.5,50,000/- against which Rs.4,00,000/- were paid by him as earnest money. During the pendency of the above-stated suit, the petitioner moved an amendment application to confine his suit qua the alternative relief for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- allegedly paid by him to the respondent- C.R. No.5489 of 2006 -2- defendant as earnest money only. The above-stated application, however, has been dismissed by the learned trial Court after holding that the petitioner cannot be permitted to convert the suit for 'specific performance' into a 'recovery suit' more so when by that time, such a recovery suit was barred by limitation. The above-stated impugned order is being assailed by the petitioner on the ground that in view of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short 'the Act'), especially the proviso to sub-Section (2) thereof, he is entitled to amend the plaint 'at any stage' in order to claim the alternative relief of refund of the earnest money. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant, however, argues that the above-stated provision would be attracted provided that the relief for 'specific performance' also survives and the refund of earnest money is sought as an alternative relief only. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order and the material on record, I am of the considered view that this revision petition deserves to be partly allowed. Since the petitioner has already filed the suit for specific performance, he can be permitted to seek the alternative relief of refund of the earnest money also, of course in consonance with the legislative intentment behind Section 22 of the Act. Ordered accordingly. This, however, would not be construed as if the suit filed by the petitioner stands converted into a suit for recovery only. Accordingly, the petitioner may place on record the amended plaint within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and an amended C.R. No.5489 of 2006 -3- written statement, if so required, may thereafter be filed within another three weeks. The additional issues shall be framed accordingly. February 28, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE