Nagendra Rai, J.

1. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed the present Civil Rev sion under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) against the order dated 5-2-2001, passed by the Subordinate Judge V/s. Patnacity, in Title Suit No. 40 of 1997, rejecting his prayer for amendment of the plaint.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the point involved in this case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract against defendant-opposite parties No. 1 and 2 on the assertion that defendant-opposite party Mo. 1 has entered into an agreement on 10-1-1995 for sale of the property detailed in the plaint on consideration amount of Rs. 2,25,000, out of which he had already paid Rs. 1,70,000. The suit was filed on 24-9-1997. During the pendency of the suit on 6-1-2001, the plaintiff filed a petition for amendment of relief No. 1 in the plaint. The proposed amendment was:

in case there is any legal difficulty in decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract of sale, as prayed for in the suit, in that case a decree for refund of Rs. 1,70,000 paid by the plaintiff to the defendant be passed with interest and/or compensation.

3. The defendant-opposite parties resisted the prayer of amendment on the ground that on 6-1-2001 when the prayer for amendment was made, the claim for refund of money was barred, by limitation under the provisions of the Limitation Act. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner for the proposed amendment on the ground that the relief sought to be amended was barred by limitation on the date of filing of the application for amendment.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the suit filed by him was for specific performance of contract for the transfer of immovable property and he made a prayer for addition of alternative relief for the refund of the earnest money in terms of the provisions contained in sec. 22(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act and the said relief can be amended at any stage of the proceeding in terms of proviso to Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 22 of the Specific Relief Act and the learned Subordinate Judge wrongly held that the claim of additional relief was barred by limitation. He further submitted that even if the amendment is treated as an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, by the proposed amendment neither a new case was introduced nor a new cause of action was pleaded. Only an additional relief was sought for on the facts already on the record and such a prayer cannot be rejected on the ground that the same has been made after expiry of the statutory period of limitation.

5. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the claim of relief of refund of money was a separate relief and the said claim was barred by limitation on the date of filing of the amendment petition and as such the Court below has rightly rejected the proposed amendment. In support of his submission, he relied upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad Jalan V/s. Smt Prem Lata Devi 1997 (1) All PLR 514.

6. Only point for consideration is as to whether in a suit for specific performance of contract, the plaintiff can make an alternative relief of refund of money in terms of sec. 22(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act at a stage when such relief is barred by lapse of time.

7. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code contains provision with regard to the amendment of the pleadings and it prowdes that the Court may allow the amendment of the pleadings at any stage of the proceeding in such manner or on such terms and conditions, provided such amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The settled rule is that the suit must be tried on the original cause of action and that principle governs the subsequent stage of the suit, i.e., the appeal also. However, there ar