Judgment:
P.K. Misra, J.
1. The plaintiff has filed this writ application against the order of the trial Court as confirmed by the revisional Court, rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint, Initially, the plaintiff had claimed the following reliefs :
'(a) Let, a decree for granting or declaring schedule amount in favour of plaintiff payable by defendants with all future benefit thereon till date of recovery of same be passed in favour of plaintiff and also any other equitable relief as deem proper may please be granted in plaintiffs favour.'
Subsequently, the plaintiff has filed a petition for amendment of the plaint on 3.8.1999 seeking to incorporate the following :
'And the Defendant No. 4 claiming to have obtained the said Sale Deed from other defendants and also in respect of the said land being aware of the aforesaid agreement of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 executed in favour of the plaintiff on 11.5.95 and the plaintiff is continuing in his possession by strength of said agreement and the Defendant No. 4 is bound by the said agreement for which the Defendant No. 4 be directed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff.'
The trial Court rejected such prayer on the grounds that the amendment would change the nature of the suit inasmuch as it may involve a question of specific performance of contract though originally there was no such prayer and the amendment was being sought for after the period of limitation of three years was over. The revisional Court having confirmed the said order the present writ application has been filed.
2. In the original plaint itself the petitioner has made averment that the property had been sold to another person (subsequently added as defendant - the present opposite party No. 4) and thus, he was aware that the property had already been sold to present opposite party No. 4 No prayer had been made for specific performance of contract. Even the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that at present also there is no prayer for amending the prayer portion seeking specific performance of contract. If that be so, there is hardly any necessity for incorporating the paragraph now sought to be made. Since the original suit is one for the refund of consideration, the averment now sought to be made is not necessary for just decision of the suit.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the provisions contained in Section 22 (2) and (3) of the Specific Relief Act and submitted that alternative prayer can be allowed by the Court at any stage of the proceeding. Such submission is made on the basis of a misconception of the true scope of Section 22 (2) and (3). In the present case, as already indicated, the original suit was only for refund of consideration and even now also there is no prayer for amending the prayer portion to make it a suit for specific performance: Even otherwise, such proposed amendment has been rightly rejected having been made beyond the period of three years from the date of filing of the suit. Both the Courts below have considered the matter in its proper perspective and no jurisdictional error has been committed by the trial Court or by the revisional Court so as to warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. All the interim orders stand vacated.