ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.04.2018 in I.A.No.773 of 2017 in O.S.No.18 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ponneri.

2. The gist of the case is that, the respondent herein filed an application in I.A.No.616 of 2017 for amending the plaint. The said application for amendment was allowed to incorporate the following prayer.

“Relief a-1) Suit for partition and allotment of the plaintiff's 1/3rd share in the suit properties.”

3. According to the Revision Petitioner, the plaint was not valued properly. Therefore, he filed an application in I.A.No.773 of 2017 to reject the plaint. The Court below after hearing both the parties, dismissed the said I.A., against which the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only issue in this Civil Revision Petition is with regard to the payment of the deficit Court fee. After the amendment, the respondent has not valued the plaint properly. Since the plaint has been amended with the additional relief, the respondent has to pay the Court fee for the amended prayer.

5. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the suit was filed for specific performance and for that he paid Court Fees. The relief sought by way of amending is only a consequential relief. Therefore, the Court Fee need not be paid under Section 22 of the Specific Reliefs Act. In support of his contention, he referred the Full Bench Judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sm. Dhiraj Bala Karia vs Jethia Estate Pvt. Ltd., reported in AIR 1983 Cal 166.

6. For better appreciation, Section 22 of the Specific Reliefs Act is extracted hereunder:

“Sec.22.Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund earnest money, etc - (1)Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), and person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property may, in an appropriate case ask for,-

(a)possession or partition and separate possession, of the property, in addition to such performance; or

(b)any other relief to which he may be entitled, including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or [made by] him in case his claim for specific performance is refused.

(2)No relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of subsection (1) shall be granted by the Court unless it has been specifically claimed:

Provided that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such relied in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief.

(3)The Power of the Court to grant relief under clause (b) of sub-section (1)shall be without prejudice to its powers to award compensation under Section 21."

7. A perusal of the Section 22 of the Specific Reliefs Act would show that in a specific performance suit, the plaintiff can ask for possession or partition and separate possession of the property, in addition to such performance or any other relief entitled including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or in case his claim for specific performance is refused.

8. In the present case, initially the respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance and paid the Court fee for the total consideration as stated in the agreement. The amendment in the plaint appears to be a consequential prayer, which does not requires any additional Court Fees.

9. At this juncture, it is appropriate to extract the paragraph 18 of the relevant portion of the judgment in the case of Sm.Dhiraj Bala Karia vs. Jethia Estate Pvt., Ltd., reported in AIR 1983 Cal 166, is extracted hereunder:

“18. We, accordingly hold that Section 22(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is procedural in nature and the use of the expression "further relief in Sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the said Act is a clear pointer that reliefs by way of delivery of possession or par