Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

31. Firstly, we may refer to Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963 (hereinafter, ‘SRA Act’) which provides that any person suing for the specific performance of the contract for the transfer of property may ask for ­ (a) possession or partition and separate possession of Page | 17 the property in addition of such performance OR (b) such person may seek any other relief to which he is entitled to “including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or made by him” in case his claim for specific performance is refused. However, sub­Section (2) thereof puts a caveat that the abovementioned reliefs shall not be granted by the court unless “it has been specifically claimed”. The proviso to sub­ Section (2) further says that even if such relief was not specifically claimed in the plaint, it is the discretion of the Court to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint “at any stage of the proceedings” and allow him to include the claim for refund of the earnest money or deposit paid. The relevant part of the provision of SRA Act reads as follows ­

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 suo­moto grant the refund of earnest Page | 19 money irrespective of the fact as to whether Section 22(2) of SRA Act is to be construed directory or mandatory in nature.