Raman S/O Radheshyam Siroya ... vs Shahrad S/O Atmaramji Jejani And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15102 Bom

                                                         1                                    23.WP.711-2018.odt




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 711 OF 2018
                   ( Raman S/o Radheshyam Siroya, (Khandelwal)
                                       Vs.
                       Shahrad S/o Atmaramji Jejani & Ors. )

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                          Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders


                                  Mr. V.S. Giramkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                                  Mr. Arjun Raoka, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

                                  CORAM:         AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 20th OCTOBER, 2021.

Heard Mr. Giramkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Raoka, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

2. The short question involved is whether, an application for amendment of a suit for specific performance of contract, can be permitted at a belated stage, as in the present case when the cross-examination on the defendant No. 1 is over. The learned Trial Court has by the impugned order permitted the amendment. Mr. Giramkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the amendment is belated, and therefore, could not have been permitted. Mr. Raoka, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 relies upon the provisions of Section 21 and Section 22 (1) of the Specific Relief Act and submits, that such an action is permissible. The language of proviso to Section 21(1) of the

2 23.WP.711-2018.odt

Specific Relief Act, permits a claim for compensation being raised at any stage of the proceedings, and the obligation upon the Court to allow such amendment, on such terms as may be just. The provisions of Section 22 (1) of the Specific Relief Act have an overriding effect, to the provision of Section 22 over the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure which would indicate that the rigours of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be attracted, in respect of the claim for amendment regarding compensation or refund of part consideration. To that extent, the amendment can be done at any stage. The position is further covered by the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kahini Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Morarji Panchamatia and others, 2013(3) Mh.L.J. 440 and Praveen s/o Champatrao Revatkar Vs. Hanuman s/o Surajmal Sharma, 2018 (4) Mh.L.J. 837, in view of which, I do not see any reason to interfere as order passed by the learned Trial Court permitting amendment.

3. The petition is therefore without any merits and is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE SD. Bhimte