Karnataka High Court
M/S S6 Infra vs Smt. R Nirmala on 30 January, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5357
WP No. 38592 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 38592 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S S6 INFRA,
(A PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 202,
PRADHAM REGENCY, ANAND NAGAR
(BEHIND HEA POLYTECHNIC),
MARATHAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 037.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, NAMELY,
PETITIONER NO. 2 AND 3 HEREUNDER
REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT.
2. MRS. T. ANURADHA,
W/O SRI TV PRASAD
Digitally signed PARTNER M/S S6 INFRA
by CHANDANA
BM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
Location: High RESIDING AT NO. 202,
Court of
Karnataka PRADHAM REGENCY, ANAND NAGAR
(BEHIND HEA POLYTECHNIC),
MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 037.
3. MR. N. RAMESH BABU
PARTNER, M/S S 6 INFRA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 202,
PRADHAM REGENCY, ANAND NAGAR
(BEHIND HEA POLYTECHNIC),
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5357
WP No. 38592 of 2025
HC-KAR
MARATHAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 037.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRAMOD N. KATHAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. RACHANA BHARADWAJ R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. R. NIRMALA
W/O SRI. RAVISEKHAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESIDING AT MADAKAIRA,
ANANTAPURA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH -515 301.
2. SRI. S.S. BANTOSH
S/O SRI. S. J. SUBRAMANYAM,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESIDING AT MADAKAIRA,
ANANTAPURA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 301.
3. MR. ROHAN SHIVKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O SRI. N. SHIVA KUMAR
RESIDING AT NO. 181, ARMADALE,
WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE - 560 066.
4. M/S. RITIKA PRIVATE LIMITED,
(A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
SUNDARI ARMADALE PLOT NO. 33,
GROUND FLOOR, WHITE FIELD MAIN ROAD,
CHAITANYA ARMADALE
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:5357
WP No. 38592 of 2025
HC-KAR
(ADJACENT TO FORUM VALUE MALL)
BANGALORE - 560 066.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER/
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
5. M/S BEIJING HOTELS PVT. LTD
(A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
SUNDARI ARMADALE PLOT NO. 33,
FIRST FLOOR, CHAITANYA ARMADALE
(ADJACENT TO FORUM VALUE MALL)
WHITE FIELD MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 066
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER/
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
6. M/S ZONE MIND AND BODY STUDIO PVT. LTD.,
(A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
SUNDARI ARMADALE, PLOT NO. 33,
SECOND FLOOR, CHAITANYA ARMADALE
(ADJACENT TO FORUM VALUE MALL)
WHITE FIELD MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 066
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER/
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
7. M/S CAFEZINHO
(A PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
OCCUPANT OF THE ENTIRE TERRACE FLOOR,
SUNDARI ARMADALE PLOT NO. 33,
CHAITANYA ARMADALE
(ADJACENT TO FORUM VALUE MALL)
WHITE FIELD MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 066,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:5357
WP No. 38592 of 2025
HC-KAR
NO. 33, REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS
MANAGING PARTNER
MS. NISHITHA BARDHAN
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.G. SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
NOTICE TO R3 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. CALL FOR
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2025,
PASSED IN O.S.NO.546 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE
RURAL, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-A2) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
Sri N G Sreedhar, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for respondents 1 and 2.
2. This petition by the defendants No.1 to 3 in OS No.5646/2011 is directed against the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 whereby the application filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating the additional relief of refund and damages was allowed by the trial Court.
-5-NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents No.1 and 2 instituted the aforesaid suit against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 - defendants No.1 to 3. and respondent No. 3-defendant No. 4 and other defendants for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit having been contested by the defendants, the matter was posted for trial and at the stage of defendants' evidence, the respondents No.1 and 2 filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating the reliefs of refund of the advance amount and damages in terms of Sections 21 and 22 of the Specific Reliefs Act. They said application having been opposed by the petitioners, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application by holding as under;
ORDER ON IA UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC DATED 04.12.2024 FILED BY plaintiff Above application is filed by plaintiff seeking for amendment of Plaint. In support of application, plaintiff no.2 has filed affidavit and prayed to allow the application.
2. On the other hand, defendants have filed objection to the above application.
-6-NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. Based upon the above contentions of the parties, the following points arise for consideration of this court:
1. Whether the plaintiffs have made out a grounds to allow the application?
2. What order?
4. Heard both side counsels. After hearing and on due perusal of the records, the court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative..
Point No.2: As per the final Order for the following:
REASONS
5. Point. No.1: Perused records. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs against defendants seeking for the relief Specific Performance of agreement sale in respect of the suit schedule property When the case was at the stage of further evidence of DW.1, the plaintiffs have come up with present application seeking for amendment of prayer in the plant. It is submitted that, the plaintiff is entitled to seek refund of advance amount under the agreement of sale. Due to legal requirement, plaintiffs are required to claim for compensation, in case the court decides that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of Specific Performance of Contract, The proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit., but it is necessary for effective adjudication of all questions in controversy between the parties. Hence, the plaintiffs prayed to allow the above application.
6. On the other hand, the defendants in their objection contended that, the above application is -7- NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR filed by the plaintiffs by suppressing the material facts. The plaintiffs have filed above application at belated stage, after 13 years from the date of filing the suit. The said prayer sought by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs have not made out any case for grant of the relief of Specific Performance. Evidence has been completed by the plaintiff. But at this stage, plaintiffs have filed the present application to drag on the proceedings of the above suit. Hence, the defendants have prayed to dismiss the above application. Defendants have relied upon the following citations:
1) (1996) 1 SCC 90 (Muni Lal Vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd).
2) (2004) 3 SCC 392 (T.N. Alloy Foundry Co.
Ltd. Vs. T.N. Electricity Board & Ors).
3) (2010) 14 SCC 596 (Van Vibhag Karmachari Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit (Registered) Vs. Ramesh Chander and Ors)
4) (2001) 3 KLJ 336-(T.S. Raju Vs. S. Anil Kumar & Anr)
5) (1997) 1 OLJR 674 (Bhagawati Prasad Jalan Vs. Prem Lata Devi Kedia & Ors).
7. Admittedly, the suit is filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of Specific Performance of Agreement of sale. The case is at the stage of evidence by the defendants. The plaintiffs contend that, due to legal requirement, he requires to seek for claim of compensation under the agreement of sale, if at all the court decides that plaintiffs are not entitled for, Specific Performance of Agreement. Except, said reason the plaintiffs hance not stated anything about the delay in seeking for the rellef of earnest money. Whereas the defendants contends that, the -8- NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR relief of earnest money is prayed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. At this belated stage, the plaintiffs cannot seek for amendment of plaint. However, it is pertinent to note that, the plaintiffs stated that, due to the legal requirement he has sought To amending the prayer seeking for earnest money. The question whether the relief sought for amendment is barred by limitation or not has to e determined only after completion of the trial. It appears that, after commencement of trial, the plaintiffs doubts about the relief of Specific Performance of Agreement. Hence, the plaintiffs have sought for amending the plaint to include the relief of earnest money. However, the plaintiffs have to prove whether he is entitled for earnest money or not during trial. Hence, in order to give an opportunity for the plaintiffs to prove his case, the amendment requires to be allowed. Moreover, the defendants have got all opportunity to deny the case of plaintiffs by filing addl. Written statement. Hence, no prejudice would cause to the defendants, if above application is considered. Hence, the following:
ORDER IA Under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC dated 04.12.2024 filed by plaintiffs is hereby allowed on cost of Rs.2000/-.
For amendment of plaint within 14 days and to file amended plaint.
Call on 30.10.2025.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the proposed amendment was ex-facie barred by limitation since the cause of action for seeking the said reliefs arose at -9- NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR the time of institution of the suit on 25.05.2011 and the present application filed on 04.12.2024 was hopelessly barred by limitation and the trial Court fell in error in allowing the application without imposing any conditions and as such the impugned order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 submits that apart from the fact that the proposed amendment has been statutorily permitted under Section 21(2) and 22 (2) of the specific relief Act ., in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and Others (AIR 2002 SC 3369) and L C Hanumanthappa vs. H B Shivakumar ((2016) 1 SCC 332), the trial Court was fully justified in allowing the amendment application by passing the impugned order which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.
6. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has come to the correct conclusion that proposed amendment being in the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR nature of a statutory amendment which is permitted under proviso to Section 21(5) as well as proviso to Section 21(2) of the Specific Relief Act, the alternative reliefs of refund and recovery of damages sought for by the respondent No. 1 -
plaintiff is permissible in law. The trial Court has also taken care to ensure that the right of the petitioner to put forth the plea of limitation is adequately safeguarded by directing that the question of limitation is to be decided only after a full-
fledged trial. It is an undisputed fact that the alternative relief of refund of advance amount and damages relate to the sale agreement dated 20.10.2010, in respect of which the respondents No. 1 and 2 have sought for specific performance.
Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court permitting amendment does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal - AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others - (2022) 10 SCC 477.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. Insofar as the contention urged by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that no useful purpose would be served if by permitting the amendment since the same is ex-facie barred by limitation is concerned, in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in Sampathkumar's case and L.C.Hanumanthappa's case supra, when an amendment to a pleading is opposed on the ground of limitation, the proper course of action to be adopted by Courts is to permit the amendment and direct that the amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be considered/reckoned from the date of filing of the amendment application and by leaving open the question of limitation to be decided along with other issues in the suit.
8. In the case of K.R.Suresh vs. R.Poornima & others
- 2025 INSC 617, the Apex Court held as under:-
53. The High Court denied the relief of refund of advance money to the appellant herein, having regard of the fact that the appellant had not sought for an alternative prayer for refund of the advance sale consideration in the suit as mandated by Section 22(2) of the 1963 Act.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR
54. Before we proceed to answer the question formulated by us in para 27, we deem it necessary to examine Section 22 of the 1963 Act. It reads thus:
"22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of earnest money, etc.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 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.
(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."
55. Sir Frederick Pollock, 3rd Baronet, in Pollock & Mulla: The Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, 16th Edn., has discussed the object and scope of Section 22 of the 1963 Act and the alternative relief of refund of earnest money deposit, as follows:
"[s 22.6.2] Refund of Earnest Money or Deposit
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR [...] The relief of refunding of earnest money or deposit cannot be granted unless specifically claimed. Further such a plea cannot be considered in a second appeal, particularly when the issue of execution of the agreement has been held as not having been proved.
Refund of amounts paid may also be ordered when specific performance has been refused on the ground of unexplained delay by the plaintiff in approaching the Court. It is also open to a plaintiff to give up his prayer for specific performance at the hearing, or before the hearing, and ask for return of the earnest money or deposit.
Where a clause entitling forfeiture of earnest money is contained in the agreement, it would not be refundable to the plaintiff who has failed to perform his part of the contract. Forfeiture of earnest money should not be allowed where the vendor has not suffered any loss, but has actually gained, viz., on account of frustration of contract. Where the value of land had considerably increased after the sale agreement, the Court, while refusing a decree for specific performance, ordered a refund of the earnest amount on the ground that the plaintiff did not suffer any loss, but had gained due to the default of the plaintiff.
xx xx xx
[s 22.7] Pleadings and Amendment to
Pleadings
Section 22 enacts a rule of pleading. It enables the plaintiff to ask for possession in the suit for specific performance and empowers the Court to provide, in the decree itself, that upon payment by the plaintiff of the consideration money within the given time, the defendant should execute the deed and put the plaintiff in possession. If the said relief is not claimed in the plaint, the Court shall permit the plaintiff at any stage of the proceedings, including execution proceedings, to amend the plaint on such terms as it deems proper. The
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR purpose is to avoid multiplicity of suits. This provision overrides the provisions of Order VI, rule 17 of CPC, 1908. Omission to seek alternative relief is not a ground to reject the plaint.
A plaintiff may amend the plaint to include a claim for refund to advance money paid to the defendant. The amendment may be made at any stage of the proceeding, including the appellate stage. The option vests with the plaintiff to claim alternative relief, and unless he claims such a relief, the Court is not empowered to grant it."
(Emphasis supplied)
56. The expression "at any stage of the proceeding"
has been judicially interpreted to include the appellate stage as well, as affirmed by a catena of High Court decisions. This interpretation entails that that an amendment of the plaint to incorporate a prayer for the alternative relief of refund of earnest money may be sought even during the first appeal from the original decree passed in a suit for specific performance. The non- obstante clause attached to Section 22(1) of the 1963 Act grants it an overriding effect, thereby excluding the operation of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Further, the use of the word "shall" in the proviso to Section 22(2) imposes a mandate upon the court to allow the amendment of plaint, as sought by the party, at any stage. [See: Sahida Bibi v. Sk. Golam Muhammad, 1982 SCC OnLine Cal 59; Tarit Bhowmik v Mukul Day, 2014 SCC Cal 5361]
57. In Manickam v. Vasantha, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2096, this Court was dealing with the question of whether the executing court could deliver
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR possession in execution of a decree where no specific prayer for possession had been made in a suit for specific performance. It held that the proviso appended to Sub- section (2) of Section 22 of the 1963, which mandates the Court to allow an amendment of the plaint at any stage of the proceeding to include a claim for such relief under Clause (a) or (b) of Section 22(1), renders the provision directory in nature. The Court opined that Section 22(2) is qualified by the phrase "in an appropriate case", referring to situations where such relief does not necessarily flow from a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement. Accordingly, if such relief under Clause (a) or
(b) of Section 22(1) appears as a necessary implication of the decree for specific performance, a specific prayer for claiming such relief would not be required. In light of these principles, this Court held that the relief of possession was inherently included in a decree for specific performance and need not be specifically pleaded. Furthermore, it reiterated that the words "at any stage of the proceeding" have a wide amplitude, encompassing both the appellate stage and execution proceedings. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
"22. The Bombay High Court in a judgment reported as Lotu Bandu Sonavane v. Pundalik Nimba Koli held that relief of possession is to be claimed "in an appropriate case". It means a case in which the relief does not necessarily flow from the decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale. If such a relief is ancillary to and necessarily flows from a decree for specific performance, then it is not necessary to specifically seek such a relief and the bar of S. 22(2) would not be attracted. If the defendant is in possession of the property agreed to be sold and the decree
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR directs a specific performance of the agreement of sale, the defendant is bound to execute the sale deed as per the decree and to put the plaintiff in possession of the property as contemplated by S. 55(1)(f) of the Transfer of Property Act. In such a case it is not necessary to specifically claim the relief of possession in the suit.
xx xx xx
9. The term "proceeding" is a very wide and comprehensive term and it includes execution proceeding also. The expression "at any stage of the proceeding" gives widest permission to the Court to allow amendment at any stage of the proceeding including execution of the decree. The amendment can be allowed even in an appeal arising out of the order passed by the executing Court rejecting the prayer for permission. The proviso recognises the well settled position that the Court passing a decree for specific performance retains control over the subject matter as long as anything remains to be done in the case."
xx xx xx
26. The matter can be examined from another angle as well. Section 22(2) of the Act, though is worded in negative language, "no relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed", but the proviso takes out the mandatory nature from the substantive provision of sub- section (2) when the plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including the plaint for such relief "at any stage of the proceeding". "At any stage of the proceeding"
would include the proceeding in suit or in appeal and also in execution. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Act contemplates that the Court shall, at any stage of the proceedings, allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief. The said proviso makes the provision directory as no
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR penal consequences follow under subsection (2) of Section 22. [...] xx xx xx
29. To examine whether a provision is directory or mandatory, one of the tests is that the court is required to ascertain the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scheme of the statute. Keeping in view the scheme of the statute, we find that Section 22(2) of the Act is only directory and thus, the decree-holder cannot be non-suited for the reason that such relief was not granted in the decree for specific relief.
30. The defendant in terms of the agreement is bound to handover possession of the land agreed to be sold. The expression "at any stage of proceeding" is wide enough to allow the plaintiffs to seek relief of possession even at the appellate stage or in execution even if such prayer was required to be claimed. This Court in Babu Lal has explained the circumstances where relief of possession may be necessary such as in a suit for partition or in a case of separate possession where the property conveyed is a joint property. In the suit for specific performance, the possession is inherent in such suit, therefore, we find that the decree-holders are in fact entitled to possession in pursuance of the sale deed executed in their favor."
(Emphasis supplied)
58. 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 that of refund of earnest money, and the courts have been vested with wide judicial discretion to permit such amendments. However, under Section 22 of the 1963 Act, the courts cannot grant such relief suo moto, since the inclusion of the prayer clause remains a sine qua non for
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR the grant of such a relief. In other words, when an "appropriate case" exists for seeking the said relief under this provision, it must be specifically sought either in the original plaint or by way of an amendment. This has been emphatically held by this Court in Desh Raj v. Rohtash Singh, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 714. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder:
"35. On a plain reading of the above-reproduced provision, we have no reason to doubt that the plaintiff in his suit for specific performance of a contact is not only entitled to seek specific performance of the contract for the transfer of immovable property but he can also seek alternative relief(s) including the refund of any earnest money, provided that such a relief has been specifically incorporated in the plaint. The court, however, has been vested with wide judicial discretion to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint even at a later stage of the proceedings and seek the alternative relief of refund of the earnest money. The litmus test appears to be that unless a plaintiff specifically seeks the refund of the earnest money at the time of filing of the suit or by way of amendment, no such relief can be granted to him. The prayer clause is a sine qua non for grant of decree of refund of earnest money.
36. Applying these principles to the facts of the case in hand, we find that the respondent has neither prayed for the relief of refund of earnest money in the original plaint nor he sought any amendment at a subsequent stage. In the absence of such a prayer, it is difficult to accept that the courts would suo motu grant the refund of earnest money irrespective of the fact as to whether Section 22(2) of the SRA Act is to be construed directory or mandatory in nature."
(Emphasis supplied)
59. The judgment in Desh Raj (supra) has been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR herein. However, it is difficult to understand how this judgment furthers their case. On the contrary, this judgment clearly contradicts their position, stating in unequivocal terms that, in the absence of a prayer for the relief of refund of earnest money, such relief cannot be granted by this Court.
60. Another judgment which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in reference to the issue of refund of earnest money, is the case of Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC
704. Notably, the ruling in this case also stands contrary to the arguments advanced by the appellant on account of the fact that the relief of refund of earnest money was denied therein. The relevant observations are extracted hereunder:
"9. In the case at hand, we find that the two courts below have gone into these questions in the light of pleadings and evidence and recorded a categorical finding against the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff was neither ready nor willing to perform his part of the contract and, therefore, he was not entitled to claim the relief of specific performance of the contract against the defendants in relation to the suit land. It was also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any relief of refund of earnest money because it was liable to be adjusted as agreed between them."
(Emphasis supplied)
61. Applying these principles to the facts of the case at hand, we find ourselves unable to accept the submissions of the appellant that, in the absence of a specific prayer for the refund of advance money paid by them, Prayer (c) of the plaint which specifies the grant of "such other
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR relief(s) as the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice", can be construed to include a prayer for such an alternative relief.
62. The reasoning set forth in the case of Manickam (supra) as regards the relief of possession under Section 22(1)(a) of the 1963 Act, can be appropriately imported in the present case to say that the relief of refund of earnest money under Section 2 2(1)(b) is not a relief that automatically flows from a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement and must, therefore, be explicitly sought.
63. In our considered opinion, the law contained under Section 22(2) of the 1963 Act is adequately broad and flexible to allow the appellant to seek an amendment of the plaint for the said relief, even at the appellate stage. However, no such application for an amendment of the plaint was moved either before the trial court or during the course of the first appeal before the High Court. That is to say, the appellant never prayed for the refund of the advance money. Here, it would be redundant to state that the law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights.
9. In the instant case, the suit having been filed on 25.05.2011 and the amendment application having been filed on 04.12.2024, I deem it just and appropriate to modify the
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR impugned order and permit the amendment subject to imposition of certain conditions in this regard.
10. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby disposed of.
(ii) The impugned order dated 19.09.2025 passed in O.S. No.546/2011 by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is hereby modified.
(iii) The application for amendment filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 - plaintiffs dated 04.12.2024 is allowed by directing that the said amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit filed on 25.05.2011, but the proposed amendment shall be reckoned/considered from 04.12.2024 when the amendment application was filed by leaving open the question of limitation to be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners and other defendants to file their additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions including the contentions regarding maintainability, jurisdiction, limitation
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5357 WP No. 38592 of 2025 HC-KAR etc., which shall be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law.
(v) All rival contentions and all aspects of the matter including limitation are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE YKL/SRL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11