The relief of claiming compensation in addition to or in substitution of specific performance is allowed under Sections 21 & 22 of the Specific Relief Act.

S.P. GARG, J.

1. The plaintiff seeks amendment of plaint to incorporate the relief of adequate compensation and in the alternative, return of Rs. 5 lacs paid as earnest money along with interest in case Specific Performance is not granted in terms of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The application is contested by the defendants.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell pleading that the agreed sale consideration was Rs. 35 lacs; out of which a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was paid by him as earnest-cum-part sale consideration. After receiving Rs. 5 lacs through his son Vijay Tandon, the defendant A.K. Tandon resiled from the agreement and sent a communication informing that he had forfeited the amount of Rs. 5 lacs. In the suit, the plaintiff has also .claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lac in addition for loss, harassment and litigation expenses/charges. In the written statement, the factum of oral agreement to sell the suit property is not disputed. It is, however, averred that the sale consideration was Rs. 61 lacs. The defendants have further averred that the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract as a result of which Rs. 5 lacs paid by him as earnest money were forfeited.

3. By the instant application, the plaintiff intends to amend the plaint to incorporate the relief of adequate/equitable compensation in addition to or in alternative/in substitution and/or in lieu of grant of specific performance. He further intends to seek relief of return of Rs. 5 lacs paid by him as earnest money. The main grievance of the defendants to object to the amendment is that the claim raised by the plaintiff has become barred by limitation. Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation expired in April, 2009. Under Sections 21 and 22 of the Specific Relief Act, it was upon the plaintiff to seek such relief within the period of limitation.

4. Contents of the plaint reveal that the plaintiff had sought compensation of Rs. 1 lac in addition. The plaintiff now seeks to enhance the amount of compensation and also in the alternative, return of Rs. 5 lacs paid as earnest money to the defendants in case relief for specific performance is not granted to him. Apparently, no fresh cause of action is being introduced by the proposed amendment in the suit pending between the parties since 2008. The suit is still at its initial stage and the parties have not produced evidence so far. It is relevant to note that when the application for framing of additional issue i.e. IA No.6818/2014 under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC was filed by the defendants, this Court on 16.04.2014, after hearing the parties dismissed the suit as not maintainable; the plaintiff was burdened with costs Rs. 20,000/- for having engaged in frivolous litigation. This order was challenged and in RFA (OS) 87/2014, the Division Bench of this Court set aside the said order and restored the suit for adjudication on merits. SLP filed by the defendants before the Supreme Court resulted in dismissal.

5. Proviso to Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act enables the plaintiff to claim compensation if not claimed earlier in the plaint, at any stage of the proceedings. Citation ‘Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors.’, (2009) 10 SCC 84, relied upon by the defendants does not support his plea. In paras 38 & 39, the Supreme Court noted :

“38. In another leading English case Weldon v. Neal, A filed a suit against B for damages for slander. A thereafter applied for leave to amend the plaint by adding fresh claims in respect of assault and false imprisonment. On the date of the application, those claims were barred by limitation though they were within the period of limitation on the date of filing the suit. The amendment was refused since the effect of granting it would be to take away from B the legal right (the defence