This revision filed by the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 170 of 1977 against an order passed in execution dismissing E.A. No. 108 of 1983 in E.P. No. 267 of 1979 raises an important question whether a decree for damages passed, in a suit where the plaintiff has abandoned the relief for specific performance of contract without making the necessary averment in the plaint initially or by amendment subsequently including the relief for damages, is null and void or non est.

2. A few facts necessary for the disposal of this revision may now be stated. The suit was instituted by the respondent herein against defendants, five in number, including the revision petitioner as the 1st defendant for specific performance of a contract for sale and in the alternative for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- from the defendants jointly and severally as damages for breach of contract. The respondent and the revision petitioner will hereinafter be referred to respectively as plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant did not appear in the suit and he was declared ex parte. The suit was contested by the other defendants. When the suit came up for trial, the plaintiff pressed only the relie