JUDGMENT :

1. In this Writ Petition important question regarding scope and ambit of expression "any other relief to which he may be entitled" as occurring in Section 22(1)(b) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 ("said Act" for short) falls for consideration.

2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is challenging order dated 4th March 2017 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Nashik below Exhibit 14 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 227 of 2013. By the impugned order, the said application, Exhibit 14 filed seeking amendment in the plaint made at the stage of appeal was rejected.

3. The Petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 763 of 2012 (Old Special Civil Suit No.440 of 2011) seeking specific performance of contract. The same was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 31st August 2013 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik. The learned Trial Court held that the Respondents have agreed to sell the suit property to the Petitioner for a total consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-,Respondent nos.1 and 2 have executed Agreement to Sale in favour of Petitioner on 17th November 2001 and thereby acknowledged receipt of Rs.1,40,000/-as an earnest money, the Petitioner is in possession of the suit property, Petitioner has proved readiness and willingness. As set out hereinabove although the learned Trial Court recorded findings in favour of Petitioner only on the point of limitation, non-suited the Petitioner and rejected the relief of specific performance. The learned Trial Court directed the Respondents to repay/refund earnest amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the Petitioner.

4. The said judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court dated 31st August 2013 is challenged by the Petitioner before the District Court, Nashik by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.227 of 2013. In the said Appeal, the Petitioner has filed the application bearing Exhibit 14 seeking amendment in the plaint by adding the prayer clause seeking injunction restraining the Respondents from disturbing petitioner's possession. The said application has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the relief of injunction will not come in the ambit of Section 22 of the said Act.

5. Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in view of non-obstante Clause of Section 22 of the said Act, provisions of C.P.C. will not apply to the amendment which the Petitioner intends to make, as the suit has been filed for specific performance. He submitted that scope of Section 22 of the said Act is wide and therefore amendment application should have been allowed. He relied on the decision of this Court, reported in 2013 (2) Mh. L.J. 699 in the matter between Shashikant Jagannath Powar Vs. Baburao Huvappa Kurhade (deceased) through LRs and Others, the decision of Supreme Court, reported in (1982) 1 Supreme Court Cases 525, in the matter between Babu Lal Vs. M/s Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and Others and the decision of Supreme Court, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1128, in the matter between Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Shaikh, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent nos.1 and 2 submitted that the amendment is belated. He submitted that Section 22 of the said Act will apply only when the relief is sought regarding possession, partition or separate possession, in addition to the prayer of specific performance. He submitted that Section 22 of the said Act will not apply to the present amendment seeking to add prayer of injunction. He submitted that the relevant provision applicable will be Order VI, Rule 17. The Petitioner has failed to plead and establish due diligence as per proviso to order VI, Rule 17. In view of the absence of the same, the Petitioner is not entitled to amend the plaint. He therefore supported the impugned order.

7. The only reason given in the impugned order is that Section 22 of said Act will apply seeking amendment regar