1. Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 7.3.2015 by which his application under Order 6 rule 17 of the CPC has been rejected.

2. Facts of the case, are as under :

An agreement to sale dated 1.3.2009 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 for sale of land bearing Survey No.15/1 (New No.15/12) area 0.90 hectare in total consideration of Rs.10.00 lac. According to the plaintiff, at the time of agreement, an amount of Rs.1.00 lac was paid and thereafter Rs.2.00 lacs was paid. The defendant No.1 took a loan of Rs.6.00 lacs by mortgaging the said suit property and another agreement dated 31.8.2009 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 by which the agreement dated 1.3.2009 was renewed.

3. In the month of September' 2010, the plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 has sold the suit property to defendants No.2 to 5 by registered sale deed dated 19.10.2010 by concealing the agreement with the plaintiff. That on 13.8.2012, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction that the sale deed dated 19.10.2010 be declared null and void and the defendant be restrained to interfere into his peaceful possession. In the said plaint in para 12, the plaintiff has reserved his right to file suit for specific performance.

4. After notice, the defendants No.1, 2 and 5 and defendants No.3 and 4 filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint.

5. Before framing the issues in the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in paras 12 and 14 to the effect that a decree of specific performance of a contract be also granted in his favour. The said application was opposed by the respondent.

6. Vide order dated 7.3.2017, learned trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the relief of specific performance has become time barred, therefore, same cannot be permit, hence, the present petition before this Court.

7. Shri V.A. Katkani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner/plaintiff has already reserved his right to seek the relief of specific performance at the time of filing of the suit. The suit is at very initial stage, therefore, amendment is permissible and he is free to make amendment in the plaint and by way of amendment, he is seeking relief of specific performance, therefore, learned trial Court ought to have allowed him. In support of his contention he has placed reliance over the judgment passed in the case of Shiv Kumar v. Ramkatori and others, reported in 1977 JLJ 33 and in case of Dhanwanti Devi (Smt) v. Jagdish Goyal, reported in 1996(II) MPWN 323. Shri Raghav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent has refuted the argument of Shri V.A. Katkani by submitting that under Order 2 rule 2, it is mandatory for the plaintiff to include whole of claim in one suit and if the plaintiff omits to claim any relief, then he shall not afterward sue in respect of the portion, so omitted or relinquish. He can omit for one relief for which the leave of the Court is required, therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error while rejecting the application. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment passed in the case of Muni Lal v. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. and another, reported in (1996)1 SCC 90 and in case of Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit (Regd) v. Ramesh Chander and others, reported in (2010)14 SCC 596.

8. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the basis of agreement to sale dated 1.3.2009 and 31.8.2009. He has challenged the sale deed dated 19.10.2010 executed between the defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 4. If the plaintiff in plaint pleaded that on 25.7.2011 he came to know that the defendant No.1 has executed the sale deed in favour of the defendants No.2 to 4 and thereafter, on 1.6.2011, he obtai