Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act allows the plaintiff to seek the refund of earnest money or deposit at any stage of the proceeding and overrides the Code of Civil Procedure in permitting amendments for relief.

ORDER :

This revision is directed against the order, dated 17.02.2023, allowing I.A.No.13 of 2023 in O.S.No.68 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the relief paragraph after relief ‘b’ to add relief ‘c’ and other paragraphs ‘d’, ‘e’ and ‘f’.

2. Heard Sri C. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. T.Sowmya, learned counsel representing Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The amendments sought and the consequential amendment to be incorporated in the prayer portion read as under:

“Consequential amendments:-

a) To pass a decree directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property after remitting the balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-within the time fixed of this Honourable Court on a duly stamped paper supplied by the plaintiff in the name and form required under law.

b) In case the defendant fails to execute the above said sale deed as directed above, the Honourable Court may itself execute the sale deed for and on behalf of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property at the costs of the plaintiff.

c) For refund of surplus amount of Rs.7,25,000/-together with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of agreement, dt.22.07.2012 till the date of payment.

d) To put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property

e) For costs of the suit, and

f) For such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.”

4. Originally, the suit was filed by the petitioner against the respondent for the reliefs shown above as ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘d’, ‘e’, ‘f’ which are shown as ‘a’ to ‘e’. Now, by filing this petition, relief ‘c’ is sought to be added and thus, the proposed amendments included original prayers and the proposed amendment with change in the serial order of the reliefs.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that the suit agreement, dated 22.07.2022, was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for purchase of Ac.5.00 cents (five acres) for consideration of Rs.17,50,000/-out of which an advance amount of Rs.16,00,000/-was paid, but, the suit relief is restricted to execution of sale deed for Ac.2.50 cents only because the defendant had already sold Ac.2.50 cents to third party, by name, Puvvala Murali Krishna, out of total extent of five acres. Now, the petitioner contends that he had inadvertently not asked the relief of refund of the surplus amount of Rs.7,25,000/-together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of agreement of sale, dated 22.07.2012, till the date of payment when the suit was filed.

6. The petition was opposed by the defendant by filing counter mainly stating that it is a delay tactic and the petitioner was filing petition after petition and that the plaintiff ought to have asked the relief when the suit was filed, but not at a subsequent stage, that too, at the fag-end of the disposal of the suit, particularly in view of the amendment (Act 22 of 2002) made to Order VI Rule 17 CPC which mandates that such amendment cannot be permitted after commencement of trial of the suit unless the petitioner establishes that such amendment could not be taken earlier in spite of exercise of due diligence, whereas in the present case, there is no such diligence established by the petitioner.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court allowed the petition in obedience to Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and by relying on the decision in Kutbuddin Riyazuddin Shaikh v. Subhash Rangnath Wadane, 1998(2) Bom CR 818 .

8. Having been aggrieved by the order, the respondent/ defendant filed this revision petition contending that the order impugned was passed without duly considering the rigor of proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC and placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of A.P in Siluveru Lakshmamma v. Siluveru Sankaraiah and othe