[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Jagarlamudi Srinivasa Rao And Anothers vs Vintha Gopireddy And 5 Others on 8 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
I.A No.1 of 2024 in A.S No.15 of 2013
Dated 08.07.2025
ORDER:
(per Hon’ble MRK, J)
The instant application is filed by the petitioners/appellants/plaintiffs 1 &
2 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w. 151 of CPC, seeking amendment to the prayer
portion of the plaint after Para VII so as to include an alternative relief for refund
of advanced amount of Rs.16,50,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% per
annum from the date of agreement 16.12.2006, till the date of realization.
2. The plaintiffs mainly contend that, at the time of preparation of the instant
appeal their advocate noticed that no alternative relief of refund of advance
amount was sought in the plaint, as such, in pursuance of advice of the counsel
on record in the appeal, they filed the present I.A, seeking amendment to add
an alternative relief of refund of Advanced amount with interest.
3. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon
Section 22 of Specific Relief Act., contended that the language employed in
Section 22(1) (b) entitles the appellants/plaintiffs to seek alternative remedy at
any stage of the proceedings of the appeal. The learned counsel further draws
2
RNT, J & MRK, J
I.A_1_2024 in A.S 15_2024
the attention of this Court to the dictum of the Apex Court held in Mallavva &
Anr. Vs. Kalsammanavara kalamma & Ors1.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent filed his counter
inter alia contending that the filing of amendment petition at the stage of appeal
is per-se not maintainable. He also contended that the amendment petition is
filed only to prolong the appeal on one-fold or another. He further raised other
points which are mainly dealing with the merits of the appeal, etc.
5. Before dealing with the amendment petition, it is apt to extract the Section
22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:-
“22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of
earnest money, etc. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (5 of 1908), any person
suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of
immovable property may, in an appropriate case, ask for-
(a) possession, or partition and separate possession, of the
property, in addition to such performance; or
(b) any other relief to which he may be entitled, including the
refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or [made by] him, in
case his claim for specific performance is refused.
(2) No relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1)
shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed:
Provident that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such relief in
the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him
to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a
claim for such relief.
1
2024 INSC 1021
3
RNT, J & MRK, J
I.A_1_2024 in A.S 15_2024(3) The power of the court to grant relief under clause (b) of
subsection (1) shall be without prejudice to its powers to award
compensation under section 21.”
6. By a plain reading of above phraseology, Section 22 enable the parties
to seek amendment at any stage of the proceedings. The above said
expression is having broad scope which includes both the original as well as
the appellate stages. It also paves way to the parties to seek amendment at
the appellate stage because appeal is the continuation proceedings of the
Original Suit.
7. In the case of Jagadish Singh Vs. Nathu Singh2, the Apex Court while
interpreting Section 21 sub-sec (5) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, has held as
under:-
“…….So far as the proviso to sub-sec. (5) is concerned,
two positions must be kept clearly distinguished. If the
amendment relates to the relief of compensation in lieu of or in
addition to specific performance where the plaintiff has not
abandoned his relief of specific performance the Court will allow
the amendment at any stage of the proceeding. That is a claim
for compensation falling under S. 21 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963 and the amendment is one under the proviso to sub-sec.
(5). But different and less liberal standards apply if what is sought
by the amendment is the conversion of a suit for specific
performance into one for damages for breach of contract in which
case S. 73 of the Contract Act is invoked. This amendment is
under the discipline of R. 17, O. 6, C.P.C. The fact that sub-sec.
(4), in turn, invokes S. 73 of the Contract Act for the principles of2
AIR 1992 SC 1604
4
RNT, J & MRK, J
I.A_1_2024 in A.S 15_2024quantification and assessment of compensation does not
obliterate this distinction……..”
8. It is apt to note that principles laid down in Mallava‘s case (supra) also
supports the amendment for plaint, so as to add relief for return of advance
amount in the appellate stage also. Relevant portion of the said judgment is
extracted hereunder:-
“12. It is settled principle of the law that appeal is the
continuation of the proceedings and even the parties can amend
their pleadings before the appellate court also subject to proof of
the fact. At this juncture it is beneficial to refer the decision of
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2016 KCCR (1) 73
in between Puttamaramma V/s Giriyappa & Ors. wherein
Hon’ble High Court in para-17 held as hereunder:
“17. Appeal being continuation of original
proceedings and Appellate Court having power to
exercise all the powers vested with the trial Court, would
necessarily have power to examine an application filed
under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC and it cannot be said that
such power to entertain the application for amendment
by the Appellate Court would not be available on the
ground of proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC curtailing
such power which in fact it does not for the reasons
already indicated herein above………”
5
RNT, J & MRK, J
I.A_1_2024 in A.S 15_2024
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.R Suresh Vs. R. Poornima & Ors3 by
interpreting Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act with regard to the adding of
alternative relief in its vivid terms held as under:-
“It is thus a settled position of law that the plaint may be
amended at any stage of the proceedings to enable the
plaintiff to seek an alternative relief, including the at of refund
of earnest money, and the courts have been vested with the
wide judicial discretion to permit such amendments.”
10. Keeping in view of the above well settled legal principles laid down by the
Apex Court, though plaintiffs did not pray for the alternative remedy of refund of
advanced amount in the plaint, they can ask for the said alternative remedy in
appeal proceedings by way of amendment petition. In fact, allowing the Order
VI Rule 17 r/w. 151 of CPC Application, would serve to meet the ends of justice
and to resolve the dispute between the parties comprehensively.
11. In view of the reasons stated above, I.A. No.1 of 2024, is hereby allowed.
12. Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the prayer and
wherever it is required.
___________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
_____________________________
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J
GVK
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1014
6
RNT, J & MRK, J
I.A_1_2024 in A.S 15_2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
I.A No.1 of 2024 in APPEAL SUIT No.316 of 2008
Dated 08.07.2025
7
RNT, J & MRK, J
I.A_1_2024 in A.S 15_2024
GVK
[ad_2]
Source link