JUDGMENT

Mr. Amit Rawal, J.:- The present revision at the instance of the petitioner-plaintiff is directed against the impugned order dated 25.08.2017 (Annexure P-1), whereby the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint owing to the occurrence of the subsequent events, has been dismissed.

2. Petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit against the respondentdefendants for possession as owner claiming specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12.04.2006 in respect of land measuring 11 kanals 2 Marlas. However, when the suit was at the initial stage, part of the land measuring 4 kanals 17 marlas was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India for widening of the road. In view of such circumstances, the permission was sought to implead the aforementioned NHAI as party. The trial Court declined the application. However, Civil Revision No.2291 of 2017 filed in this Court was disposed of vide order dated 04.04.2018 and the application for impleadment of the NHAI was allowed. However, during the pendency of the revision petition, petitioner-plaintiff had also filed an application dated 27.02.2017 (Annexure P-5) for amendment of the plaint on two counts, i.e., one with regard to refund of earnest money and the other deposits made by the petitioner with the defendants along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment of earnest money and from the date of each deposit till payment. The other part of the amendment was for entitlement of compensation owing to the breach of the agreement. The trial court had allowed the application for alternative relief of refund of earnest money, but did not grant the amendment with regard to the compensation. The impugned order, thus, suffers from illegality, for, while dismissing the application, the trial Court though noticed the provisions of Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, the Act) but did not interpret in correct perspective. In support of the aforementioned averments, referred to the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme court in Urmila Devi and others Versus, Deity, Mandir Shree Chamunda Devi Through Temple Commissioner and others, [2018(2) Law Herald (SC) 196 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 909] : 2018(2) Supreme Court Cases 284, which has been passed by relying upon the ratio decidendi culled out in Jagdish Singh Versus Natthu Singh, 1992(1) SCC 647.

3. In order to buttresses his argument, learned counsel submitted that it was too premature for the Court to opine whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as the expression “in addition to” has been incorporated by amendment in the Act w.e.f. 09.09.2018. The trial Court should have kept the question open to adjudicate at the initial stage but should not have pre-empted or taken away the right in the manner and mode. The amendment is a subsequent event which was not in the knowledge as the suit was already pending and all the more reasons should have been allowed.

4. Per contra, Mr. Vikas Bahl, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rohan Jain, Advocate, representing the respondents submitted that both the judgments referred to above, pertained to acquisition of a plot, whereas in the instant case, acquisition is only for 4 kanals 17 marlas out of 11 kanals 2 marlas. The petitioner as plaintiff has a remedy under the Land Acquisition Act being an agreement holder, though as per the ratio decidendi culled out by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in S.Kesari Hanuman Goud Versus Anjum Jehan and others, [2014(2) Law Herald (SC) 1408 : 2014(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2100 (SC)] : 2014(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 52= 2013 (12) SCC 64, the agreement holder in respect of acquired land has no right to claim compensation. The attention of this court was also drawn to the prayer in the application to contend that it is not compensation as contemplated under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, but under the Land Acquisition Act and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the revision petition with exemplary costs.

5. I hav