The Supreme Court has held that the plaint can be amended anytime for alternative relief, but courts cannot grant refund suo moto under Section 22 of Specific Relief Act.
The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan has observed 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 Specific Relief Act, the courts cannot grant such relief suo moto, since the inclusion of the prayer clause remains a sine qua non for 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.
The Appellant filed a suit seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell (ATS). The Respondents, original owners of the property, had acquired title through an unregistered Will. Under the ATS, the Appellant had made a part payment, referred to as ‘advance money’. However, when the Appellant failed to pay the balance amount within the stipulated timeframe, the Respondents terminated the agreement and forfeited the advance.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the advance served as security for performance and was validly forfeited due to the Appellant’s breach and the consequent loss to the Respondents. T
he High Court upheld this decision, noting that the Appellant had failed to establish readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and was therefore not entitled to specific performance.
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court rightly denied the Appellant the relief of refund of advance money, as the Appellant had not included a specific prayer for such refund in the original suit, as required under Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act. Referring to its earlier ruling in Desh Raj v. Rohtash Singh, the Court reiterated that while courts have broad discretion to allow amendments to a plaint—even at a later stage—to seek alternative relief such as refund of earnest money, this relief cannot be granted unless it is explicitly prayed for. The Court underscored that the inclusion of a specific prayer for refund is a sine qua non for obtaining such relief.
The Bench clarified that although Section 22 permits seeking refund as an alternative relief when specific performance is denied, this remedy is contingent on it being specifically claimed. In this case, the Appellant did not file any application to amend the plaint either before the Trial Court or during the appeal before the High Court. As the Appellant failed to assert this right at any stage, the Court remarked that “the law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights.”
Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the Respondents were justified in forfeiting the advance money and found no perversity or illegality in the High Court’s decision. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Case Details
Case Title: K.R. Suresh v. R. Poornima & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 5822 Of 2025
Date: 02/05/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli; Advocates Suraj Kaushik, Firoz Gandhi and Nahar Singh Yadav
Counsel For Respondent: AOR Supreeta Sharanagouda, Supreeta Sharanagouda and Dhawesh Pahuja; Advocates Sharanagouda Patil, Jyotish Pandey, Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Saket Gogia, Gauri Pande, Sheetal Maggon and Mansingh
