D. Krishnakumar, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises against the fair and decretal Order dated 15.9.2011, made in I.A. No. 432 of 2011 in O.S. No. 195 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Salem. The Petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 195 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Salem. The Revision Petitioner entered into a registered Sale Agreement dated 2.7.2008, with the Defendant in respect of the Suit property for a Sale Consideration of Rs.8,00,000.

2. A Written Statement was filed by the Defendant/the Respondent herein, denying the allegations of the Plaintiff.

3. The case was posted for cross-examination of PW1. At that stage, the Petitioner came to know that the possession of the Agreement Property has not been asked for and by inadvertence, the expression "without interest" had been added in Column (iii) of the prayer. In order to avoid this complication, the present Amendment Application is filed by the Plaintiff/Revisioner Petitioner in I.A. No. 432 of 2011 before the Trial Court.

4. A Counter Affidavit was filed by the Respondent herein denying the allegations found in the Affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory Application. By an Order dated 15.9.2011, the Trial Court, partly allowed the Interlocutory Application and the Petitioner was permitted to amend the Plaint in respect of interest and insofar as the amendment regarding possession is concerned, the relief is dismissed.

5. Mr. R. Siddarth, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the prayer for recovery of possession is an additional prayer, generally sought for in all the Specific Performance Suits and that the proposed amendment will neither change the nature nor the character of the Suit and therefore will not prejudice the rights of the Defendant/Respondent and that if the present amendment is not allowed, the Plaintiff/Revision Petitioner has to file an another Suit for recovery of possession after succeeding in the present Suit for Specific Performance, which will lead to unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings.

6. According to the learned Counsel for the Respondent, even though partly allowed, it has rightly rejected the amendment regarding possession. Therefore, there is no reason warranting interference by this Court in this Civil Revision Petition. Further, he submitted that the Petitioner has filed the aforesaid I.A. belatedly. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard Mr. R. Siddarth, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. N. Manokaran, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

8. By an Order dated 15.9.2011, the Trial Court partly allowed the relief prayed for by the Revision Petitioner and partly, it has rejected insofar it relates to amending the prayer for recovery of possession. The said prayer in the Suit is to execute the Sale Deed in respect of the Suit property in favour of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the relief of prayer is under the provisions of Specific Relief Act. The Courts can grant relief of recovery of possession once Suit is decreed for Specific Performance as has been held in Krishnamurthy Gounder v. Venkatakrishnan and others, 2012 (1) CTC 823. Even though, the Suit was decreed as prayed for, the recovery of possession was not included in the Decree. This Court has held that in the Suit of Specific Performance, even the Decree is silent about the recovery of possession, the Decree-holder is entitled to possession as the party accrues right to grant relief of possession even in the absence of any such prayer as per the Proviso to Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act.

9. The learned Counsel for the Respondent relying upon the Judgment rendered in Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, 2009 (2) SCC 409, would submit that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement