The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relief of possession can be implicit in a decree for specific performance, and the executing Court has the discretion to allow amendment to include the relief of possession, as provided under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act.

Bakhshish Kaur, J. - By the order, I would dispose of two Civil Revisions Nos. 612 of 2001 and 613 of 2001.

2. The facts which have bearing on the decision of the question raised in this petition are as follows :

3. A decree for specific performance of the agreement in respect of the land measuring 68 kanals 8 marla on payment of Rs. 1,80,850/- was passed in favour of Rohtas Chaudhary and against Zorawar Singh and Ramesh Kumar defendant- petitioners.

4. The decree-holder applied for the execution of the decree. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, he filed an application for amendment on the ground that while drafting the execution application, he could not claim relief of possession. The amendment was allowed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division. Pursuant thereto, warrant of possession of the land was ordered to be issued. Hence, both these orders passed on January 24, 2001, are under challenge.

5. I have heard Shri S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri H.S. Grewal, Senior Advocate with Shri T.P.S. Mann, Advocate, for the respondent and have gone through the file carefully.

6. Sh. S.S. Dinarpur, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, nothing has been said with regard to delivery of possession of the land in question. Only a decree for specific performance of the agreement and not possession was passed. Since the judgment and decree are silent regarding possession, therefore, the executing Court could not exercise discretion in allowing the amendment to the execution petition as it amounts to going behind the decree and the judgment and decree which has attained finality cannot be altered because claim regarding delivery of possession of the land in question has not been included therein.

7. The copy of the judgment accompanied by a decree-sheet is Annexure P-2. Admittedly, while passing the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff, the trial Court has decreed the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 26th March, 1989 for sale of land as fully detailed and described therein on payment of Rs. 1,80,850/- alongwith costs and stamp registration charges.

Whether the decree passed on these terms is to be read in isolation to the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint ? The relief claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint is as under :-

"Suit for specific performance of the contract dated 26.3.1989 for sale of the land measuring 68 kanals 8 marlas bearing khewat No. 667, Khatauni No. 919, Khasra No. 23//14, Khewat No. 722, Khatauni No. 919, Khasra No. 23//15, Khewat No. 818 min, Khatauni No. 1035 min, Khasra No. 23//12, Khatauni No. 1055 min, Khasra No. 23//6, 7, Khewat No. 932, Khatauni No. 1055, Khasra No. 23//19/2 Khewat No. 932, Khatauni No. 1173, Khasra No. 23//13 and 8 Kanals out of 55 shares in Khewat No. 1010 and particular Khasra No. 23//8, Hissa Khandari Kashat of the deft No. 1 situated at village Khizrabad Hadbast No. 165, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar as per jamabandi for the year 1985-86 and for possession of the same on payment of Rs. 1,80,850/-." (Emphasis supplied)

8. Where a person is claiming decree for specific performance of contract for sale of land and for possession of the same on payment of Rs. 1,80,850/- and his claim has been accepted and decreed accordingly, and the word "possession" has not been specifically mentioned therein, it would not mean that he was denied relief of possession of the land in question.

9. A somewhat similar situation arose in a case reported as Babu Lal v. M/s. Hazari Lal, Kishori Lal and others, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 818. In this case, a suit for specific performance of the contract was filed. It was dismissed by the trial Court, but on appeal, the Additional District Judge, decreed the suit. In the Regular Second Appeal, the High Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court with a slight modification. The decree- hol