Supreme Court: Under which circumstances the court can allow amendment of plaint during execution of decree and at appellate stage?

 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.” {Para 54}

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.” {Para 9}.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5822 OF 2025

@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5630 OF 2023

K.R. SURESH Vs R. POORNIMA & ORS.

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:

Citation: 2025 INSC 617.

Dated: May 02, 2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court : The court should not grant refund of advance amount in suit for specific performance of contract if it is not prayed specifically during the continuance of proceeding

 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.

{Para 63}

 E. CONCLUSION

64. For all the foregoing reasons, we have reached the conclusion that theforfeiture of advance money by the respondent nos. 1-4 was justified. In  such circumstances, we are not inclined to grant the relief of refund of advance money to the appellant.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5822 OF 2025

@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5630 OF 2023

K.R. SURESH Vs R. POORNIMA & ORS.

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:

Citation: 2025 INSC 617.

Dated: May 02, 2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme court: Forfeiture Of 'Earnest Money' Is Not Penal In Ordinary Sense So As To Apply Section 74 Contract Act

On a conspectus of the aforementioned authorities, it is evident that a clause for the forfeiture of earnest money is not penal in the ordinary sense, rendering Section 74 of the 1872 Act, inapplicable. In the present case, the stipulated amount under the ATS was in the nature of an earnest money deposit and thus, Section 74 of the 1872 Act cannot apply to the same. Further, the forfeiture clause was fair and equitable rather than one-sided and unconscionable, as it imposed liabilities on both the appellant purchaser and respondent-sellers, wherein the seller was obligated to pay twice the advance amount paid by the buyer in case of his default. {Para 51}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5822 OF 2025

@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5630 OF 2023

K.R. SURESH Vs R. POORNIMA & ORS.

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:

Citation: 2025 INSC 617.

Dated: May 02, 2025.

Print Page