The central legal point established in the judgment is that the executing court is empowered to grant relief adjudging subsequent development if prayed for by the decree holder in accordance with the law. Additionally, the court highlighted the exceptions to the principle of pleadings and the power of the court to direct refund of the amount paid by the plaintiff, even if not specifically claimed in the plaint.

ORDER : – The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging order dated 25-4-2016 and 22-12-2016, passed by the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 200118/1991.

2. The case of the petitioner-judgment debtor is that the respondent-decree holder had filed a suit for specific performance for the land in dispute. On 30-9-1996, the Civil Suit was decreed in favour of the respondent-decree holder. On 5-12-1998, the First Appeal preferred by the petitioner-judgment debtor against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, was dismissed. On 24-4-2013, Second Appeal No. 316/1999, was also dismissed by this Court and, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court attained finality. The decree was put to execution by the respondent-decree holder for getting the sale deed executed. The respondent-decree holder filed an application under section 146 read with section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein, it was stated that the land in question has been acquired by the State Government and, therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer is a necessary party so that appropriate direction can be given to him to pay the compensation to the respondent-decree holder. The said application was opposed by the petitioner-judgment debtor. It was submitted by the petitioner-judgment debtor that the petitioner-judgment debtor was the owner and from his ownership, on account of the acquisition of the land, the title has vested with the State Government and, therefore, the decree in question has become non-executable as the petitioner-judgment debtor cannot execute the sale deed when the land does not vest with him as on date.

3. Vide impugned order dated 25-4-2016, the executing Court has noted that the award dated 25-11-2014 was pronounced and the respondent-decree holder is entitled for execution of decree dated 7-12-1998 and, therefore, the petitioner judgment-debtor was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent-decree holder. By the said order dated 25-4-2016, the Land Acquisition Officer was also directed not to disburse the amount of compensation in favour of the petitioner-judgment debtor. By subsequent order dated 22-12-2016, further steps were taken to send the proforma of the proposed sale deed to the Collector of Stamp for proof reading and for calculation of the stamp duty.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-judgment debtor submits that when the petitioner is not the valid title holder of the land, therefore, he cannot execute the sale deed and such a sale deed would be null and void. He places reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Chand vs. Gopala and others, (1995) 2 SCC 528 and Sneh Prabha (Smt.) and others vs. State of U. P. and another, (1996) 7 SCC 426.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-decree holder submits that the impugned orders are strictly in accordance with law. This Court should not interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent-decree holder is pursuing his remedy for more than two decades. He is entitled for the fruits of the decree. He should not be deprived of his rights only on the ground that the land in question has been acquired by the State Government. Even if the land is acquired, the appropriate direction for payment of compensation to the respondent-decree holder can always be given by the executing Court. The executing Court is empowered to suitably modify the decree and, therefore, no error has been caused.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act of 1963”) deals with power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of earnest money, etc. It is provided in section 22 of the Act of 1963 that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, any person suing for the specific perform