Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(emphasis added) So far as the proviso to sub-section (5) is concerned, two positions must be kept clearly distinguished. If the amendment relates to the relief of compensation in lieu of or in addition to specific performance where the plaintiff has not abandoned his relief of specific-performance the court will allow the amendment at any stage of the proceed- ing. That is a claim for compensation failing under Secion 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the amendment is one under the proviso to sub-section (5). But different and less liberal standards apply if what is sought by the amend-

ment is the Conversion of a suit for specific performance into one for damages for breach of contract in which case Section 73 of the Contract Act is invoked. This amendment is under the discipline of Rule 17 Order 6, C.P.C. The fact that sub-section (4), in turn, invokes Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act for the principles of quantification and assessment of compensation does not obliterate this distinc- tion.

The provisions of Section 21 seem to resolve certain divergencies of judicial opinion in the High Courts on some aspects of the jurisdiction to award of compensation. Sub- section (5) seeks to set at rest the divergence of judicial opinion between High Courts whether a specific claim in the plaint is necessary to grant the compensation. In England Lord Cairn's (Chancery Amendment) Act, 1858 sought to confer jurisdiction upon the Equity Courts to award damages in substitution or in addition to specific performance. This became necessary in view of the earlier dichotomy in the jurisdiction between common law and Equity Courts in the matter of choice of the nature of remedies for breach. In common law the remedy for breach of a contract was damages. The Equity Court innovated the remedy of specific perform- ance because the remedy of damages was found to be an inade- quate remedy. Lord Cairn's Act, 1858 conferred jurisdiction upon the Equity Courts to award damages also so that both the reliefs could be administered by one court. Section 2 of the Act provided:

11. In Mohamad Abdul Jabbar & Others v. Lalmia &Others. A.I.R (34) 1947 Nagpur 254 specific performance of an agree- ment of sale dated 16th January, 1934, was sought by the institution of a suit on 15th January, 1937. During the pendency of the suit, on 20th April, 1937, the provincial Government started land acquisition proceedings respecting the subject-matter of the suit and the same was acquired. The High Court upheld the dismissal of the suit for specific performance and referred an amendment for award of damages. On the obvious impermissibility of specific performance the Nagpur High Court said: