IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6563 of 2007 Date of decision:29.04.2009 Ram Niwas ...Petitioner versus Bramchari and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Shailendra Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Bijender Dhanakar, Advocate for respondent No.10. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is against the order permitting at the appellate stage, a petition for amendment filed at the instance of the plaintiff/respondent in appeal for including the prayer for recovery of possession of property in a suit for specific performance. The amendment is in terms of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, to include the relief of recovery of possession in the suit for specific performance. This provision has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in several decisions and various Courts that this power shall be construed liberally and amendment could be ordered “at any stage of the proceeding” till the stage when the matter is before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Proviso to Civil Revision No.6563 of 2007 - 2 - Section 22 itself contemplates the right of a party to claim any relief which had been ommitted at any stage of the proceedings (emphasis supplied) and allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief. The order passed by the Appellate Court is perfectly justified and the appellant revision-petitioner cannot be said to be in any way prejudiced by such a prayer. If the prayer for recovery of possession of property is always considered as an ancillary relief, the only objection that is possible could be in relation to the territorial jurisdiction and even that plea may not be possible in a case where the suit itself has been disposed of after evidence of parties on merits. 2. Needless to state that the appellant shall have a right to make an additional pleading consequent on the amendment as permitted to be made in the pleadings of the plaintiff. Subject to this liberty, the Civil Revision is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 29.04.2009 sanjeev