JUDGMENT

B. P. DAS, J. — Even though notice was issued to the opposite party by registered post with A.D., the same is returned back with an endorsement that the addressee refused to accept the same. The service of notice on the opposite party is treated as sufficient.

2. This revision application is directed against an order passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Jajpur in Title Suit No. 212 of 1995 rejecting the petitioner’s application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. wherein.

3. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:

The plaintiff, Sanjukta Mohanty (petitioner herein) filed a suit for a decree for specific performance of contract as against the present opposite party with the following relief :

“(a) A decree for specific performance of the contract be passed, directing the defendant to transfer the ownership of the bus bearing registration No. OR-04-4989 in favour of the plaintiff as per M.V. Rules on receipts of the balance consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff, failing which the same be per¬formed through Court;

(b) cost of the suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiff, and

(c) let such other relief or reliefs be granted to the plaintiff to which she is entitled to.”

4. Accordingly to the plaintiff-petitioner, the defendant-opposite party, who is owner of the bus bearing registration No. OR-04-4989 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the bus for a consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four lakhs) and as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement after initial payment of Rs.1,00,000/-, the balance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- shall be paid in different instalments. It was further stipulat¬ed in the agreement that on payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-, out of the balance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the defendant - opposite party would bring the clearance certificate from the Bank as the property was under hypothecation to the Bank, and thereafter on payment of the remaining one lakh, the defendant would transfer his ownership of the bus in favour of the plaintiff. These are the main terms inter alia, amongst the others.

5. According to the plaintiff, though she has performed her part of contract, the defendant - opp. party refused to obtain clearance certificate from the Bank and transfer the ownership of the bus, as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement. This led the plaintiff to file the suit. After filing of the written statement by the defendant the suit was posted for hearing. According to the plaintiff although she has prayed for a decree for specific performance of contract inad¬vertently she has omitted the prayer for an alternative relief regarding refund of money paid by her to the defendant, for which on 15.7.1999, she filed an application for amendment of the plaint with a prayer to incorporate the above mentioned alterna¬tive relief which was objected to by the defendant-opposite party on the ground of limitation. Upon hearing the parties, the trial Court rejected the aforesaid application on the observation that the alternative relief sought for by the plaintiff was available to be made initially when suit was filed which she failed to do, for which she is not entitled to pray for such relief at a belat¬ed stage as her claim is barred by limitation.

6. In this regard it is profitable to quote the provisions of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

“22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of earnest money etc. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the con¬trary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) any 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 re