1984 Supreme(Cal) 291

High Court Of Calcutta
MANJULA BOSE
RAJ KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
BENOY KUMAR - Respondent
Suit 629  Of  1980
Decided On : 08/09/1984

Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, which is an enabling provision, does not seek to interfere with the jurisdiction of a Court and the section itself enacts that "in an appropriate case" a claim for possession and ancillary reliefs can be sought by way of amendment in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Headnote:

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - JURISDICTION - Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of plaint to include a prayer for possession - Maintainability - Jurisdiction of the Court.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement and/or for a decree directing the defendant No. 1 to execute a proper and sufficient conveyance in respect of the suit premises. The defendants filed a joint written statement, alleging that a sum of Rs. 34,500/- payable to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 by the defendant No. 1 under an agreement, not being paid, the plaintiff was not entitled to get any relief in the suit. The plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint to include a prayer for vacant possession of a portion of the premises and consequential relief. The defendants objected to the amendment on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant possession as the property was situate outside the jurisdiction.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the amendment sought to be introduced by the plaintiff, namely, a claim for possession, should not be allowed. The Court reasoned that the property being situate outside jurisdiction, no relief of possession could initially have been claimed in the original proceedings as the matter would be admittedly beyond jurisdiction of the Court if such a prayer or claim incorporated. The Court further held that Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, which is an enabling provision, does not seek to interfere with the jurisdiction of a Court and the section itself enacts that "in an appropriate case" a claim for possession and ancillary reliefs can be sought by way of amendment in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In the instant case, the decree for possession could not have been asked for in the original plaint as the Court would be incompetent to entertain and try a suit for land and the legislature in enacting Section 22 did not override clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

Issues: 1. Whether the amendment sought by the plaintiff to include a prayer for possession should be allowed? 2. Whether Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act confers jurisdiction on a Court which had none?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the amendment sought by the plaintiff to include a prayer for possession should not be allowed. The Court reasoned that the property being situate outside jurisdiction, no relief of possession could initially have been claimed in the original proceedings as the matter would be admittedly beyond jurisdiction of the Court if such a prayer or claim incorporated. 2. The Court held that Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, which is an enabling provision, does not seek to interfere with the jurisdiction of a Court and the section itself enacts that "in an appropriate case" a claim for possession and ancillary reliefs can be sought by way of amendment in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In the instant case, the decree for possession could not have been asked for in the original plaint as the Court would be incompetent to entertain and try a suit for land and the legislature in enacting Section 22 did not override clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint in the manner shown in paras 15 (a), 15 (b) and 15 (c) of the Annexure X to the petition. The proposed amendments in paras 15 (d), 15 (e) and 15 (f) were rejected. Para (e1) was allowed and para (e2) was rejected. Paras (e3), (e4) and (e5) were not required to be considered in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as recorded hereinabove.