Abhilasha Kumari, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Mehul S. Shah, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided, finally.

2. The challenge in this petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 01.07.2013, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar ("the Trial Court"), below the application at Ex. 132, in Regular Civil Suit No. 361 of 2006, whereby, the said application for amendment of the plaint, has been rejected.

3. The brief factual background of the case is as follows:

The petitioner is the plaintiff in the above-mentioned suit instituted by him for the specific performance of an Agreement to Sell entered into by him with the respondents, in respect of Flat No. 503, situated at Survey No. 1-G4, Plant-4, Plot No. 10, purchased by him. The amount of consideration at Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Ten Thousand Only), was given by the petitioner to the respondents on 20.04.1993. The Agreement to Sell in respect of the above premises was registered before the Joint Registrar, Jamnagar, on 20.04.1993. According to the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), was paid by him to the respondents in cash and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), were paid by cheque. In all, the petitioner has paid Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), to the respondents. The respondents handed over the possession of the said premises by way of a Agreement for Possession on 20.04.1993, as the petitioner paid the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), as well. The time-limit for the execution of the Sale Deed was fixed as four months. However, in spite of the fact that the petitioner had paid the full consideration, the respondents refused to execute the Sale Deed. The petitioner was constrained to institute the above-mentioned suit for specific performance, along with an application at Ex. 5, for the grant of a temporary injunction. The application at Ex. 5 was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 13.03.1995. As no injunction was granted by the Trial Court in favour of the petitioner, the respondents took back the possession of the premises. The petitioner, therefore, preferred the application at Ex. 132 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the CPC"), seeking to amend the plaint for adding a claim for possession of the premises. This application has been rejected by the Trial Court, leading to the filing of the present petition.

4. Mr. Jayesh A. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Trial Court failed to keep in mind the fact that the suit has been filed for specific performance and as per Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, ("the Specific Relief Act"), the plaintiff is entitled to amend the plaint by inserting a relief for possession, at any stage of the proceedings.

5. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has not appreciated the documents filed by the petitioner along with the suit, more particularly the Agreement for Possession, vide which possession of the premises was handed over to the petitioner on 20.04.1993. As possession was handed over to him, the petitioner did not claim possession in the suit. However, after the rejection of the application for temporary injunction, the respondents, taking advantage of this aspect, took back the possession of the premises, necessitating the filing of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment in the plaint, by claiming the relief of possession.

6. It is contended that the provisions of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act would prevail over Order 6 Rule 17, as the former is a special enactment, applicable to suits for specific performance.

7. It is further urged that the Trial Court has