CR-6285-2026 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6285-2026 Date of decision: 20.08.2026 Ramesh ...Peoner Versus Vinod Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Deepak Kundu, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The peoner-defendant has approached this Court under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India assailing order dated 17.07.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhajjar, whereby the applicaon filed by the plainff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Secon 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for amendment of the plaint has been allowed, subject to payment of costs of ₹2,000/-. 2. The suit has been instuted seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.06.2018 and consequenal possession and permanent injuncon. By way of amendment, the plainff sought, inter alia, consequenal addional reliefs regarding costs, execuon & registraon of the sale deed and, in the alternave, refund of the earnest money with interest in the event the relief of specific performance is declined. 3. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the peoner has argued that the amendment was sought aBer commencement of trial, when the maCer had reached the stage of defence evidence, and that the plainff has failed to demonstrate due diligence as required by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It is further contended that the omission is sought YOGESH MEHTA 2026.08.21 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6285-2026 [2] to be explained merely on the ground of inadvertence of the previous counsel and that permiDng the amendment at this stage would prejudice the defendant and reopen the trial. 4. The contenon, though aCracve, overlooks the special statutory provision governing the present case. Secon 22 of the Specific Relief Act specifically deals with suits for specific performance and enables the plainff, in an appropriate case, to seek, in addion to specific performance, consequenal reliefs including possession and refund of earnest money or deposit. The proviso to Secon 22(2) expressly provides that where such relief has not been claimed in the plaint, the Court shall, at any stage of the proceedings, permit the plainff to amend the plaint for including such relief on such terms as may be just. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Desh Raj and others v. Rohtash Singh, (2023) 3 SCC 714, has recognised that the Court is vested with wide discreon to permit amendment at a later stage for incorporang the alternave relief of refund of earnest money. The requirement is that such relief must be specifically claimed either in the original plaint or by way of amendment; it cannot be granted suo motu. 6. A Division of this Court in Jasbir Singh v. Amrik Singh, CR-3306- 2022, decided on 09.09.2022, has also held that the proviso to Secon 22(2) introduces elascity in the prayer clause and permits incorporaon of the relief of refund of earnest money at any stage of the suit. The said provision, being a special provision governing suits for specific performance, cannot be defeated by mechanically applying the restricon contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 7. In the present case, the proposed alternave relief does not introduce a new agreement, transacon or independent factual foundaon. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.08.21 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6285-2026 [3] It arises from the very same agreement to sell dated 14.06.2018 and is sought only as an alternave in the event the principal relief of specific performance is declined. Thus, the basic nature and foundaon of the suit remain unchanged. 8. The other amendments concerning execuon and registraon of the sale deed and award of costs are merely consequenal or ancillary to the principal relief already claimed. They do not introduce an independent cause of acon or alter the nature of the suit. 9. The fact that the applicaon was moved at a belated stage may jusfy compensang the defendant by costs, as has already been done by the learned Trial Court. However, such delay, by itself, cannot defeat the statutory facility available to a plainff under the proviso to Secon 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act. The defendant would have an opportunity to meet the amended pleading in accordance with law. 10. Consequently, no jurisdiconal error, perversity or material irregularity is found in the impugned order warranng interference under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India. 11. The revision peon is, accordingly, dismissed. It is clarified that the observaons made herein are confined to the queson of amendment and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the plainff's claim for specific performance, refund of earnest money, interest or any defence available to the peoner. 20.08.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.08.21 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document