LAWS(P&H)-2016-8-167

AMAR SINGH Vs. RAJ KUMAR

Decided On August 02, 2016
AMAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
RAJ KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-Defendant is aggrieved of the judgment and decree, whereby the Lower Appellate Court modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court by exercising the discretion under Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1996 (for short "1996 Act") Act by ordering for refund of the earnest money.

(2.) It would be apt to reproduce Section 22 and 28 of the Specific Relief Act.

(3.) On conjoint reading of proviso to Section 22(2) and as well as sub Section 3 of Section 28, it is manifest that the court can at any stage of the proceedings grant relief of amendment of plaint, in the absence of relief sought in the main suit and thus, the respondentplaintiff need not to seek amendment of the plaint by resorting to the provisions of Section 22 (2) instead moved an application to the court for granting such relief. As noticed above the sale deed through the intervention of the court has already been executed.