ORDER

Plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order, dated 28.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.75 of 2022 in O.S.No.55 of 2015 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

2. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.55 of 2015 seeking specific performance of contract dated 04.07.2015.

3. In the plaint, it was averred that plaintiff entered into agreement of sale with defendant Nos.1 and 2. Plaintiff paid entire consideration to defendant Nos.1 and 2 and possession was delivered to plaintiff. Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Subsequently, defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 on 21.07.2015. Defendant No.3 tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, suit is filed for specific performance and consequential relief of injunction.

4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 together filed written statement. Defendant No.3 filed separate written statement and inter alia, contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed agreement of sale on 02.07.2015 and the same was culminated into a registered sale deed dated 21.07.2015. Property was delivered to defendant No.3 on 21-7-2015 and defendant No.3 has been in possession of the property.

5. The trial in the suit was completed and the matter was posted for arguments. At that juncture, plaintiff filed I.A.No.10 of 2022 to reopen the suit. Said I.A. was allowed. Later plaintiff filed I.A.No.75 of 2022 under Section 22(1)(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint.

6. In the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, it was contended, that pending the suit, defendant No.3 forcibly trespassed into the suit schedule property and occupied the same by using political and muscle power. As plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property on the date of filing of the suit, initially possession of property was not asked for. However, in view of subsequent developments, application is filed seeking amendment.

7. Defendant No.3/respondent No.3 filed counter and opposed the application. In the counter, while reiterating the averments made in the written statement, contended that defendant No.3 came into possession of the suit schedule property pursuant to sale deed dated 21.07.2015 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Plaintiff did not disclose in the affidavit as to when he was dispossessed. Proposed amendment causes prejudice to defendant No.3 and thus, prayed to dismiss the application.

8. By order dated 28.02.2022, trial Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

9. Heard learned counsel on either side.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under Section 22(1)(a) of the Act, unless plaintiff asks for possession, no relief will be granted. He would also submit that at any stage of the proceedings plaintiff is entitled to ask for the relief by way of amendment. He would also submit that merits of the matter cannot be gone into at the stage of considering an application for amendment. Trial Court without considering all these aspects dismissed the application.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would contend that in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, nothing was mentioned as to when plaintiff was dispossessed from possession of the suit schedule property. He further submits that plaintiff, in the plaint, contended about possession over the suit schedule property and proceeded with the trial and when the suit is coming up for arguments, application is filed seeking recovery of possession of suit schedule property. Trial Court considered these aspects and dismissed the application. There is no illegality in the order of the trial Court.

12. The point for consideration is whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for?

13. Suit O.S.No.55 of 2015 is filed seeking specific performance of contract of sale, dated 04.07.2015 and for consequenti