JUDGMENT 1. In a suit for specific performance of contract, instituted by the plaintiff- petitioner, he moved an application for the amendment of the plaint. This amendment has been refused by the learned Munsif, Kishangarh Bas (Alwar), by his order dated 6.3.1986. This order has been challenged in this revision. 2. In the plaint, the petitioner averred that he is ready and willing to make the payment of Rs. 1,000/-, which is to be paid to the defendant according to the contract and that he is ready to bear all the costs and expenses of the sale- deed and registration charges etc. This paragraph of the plaint was denied by the non-petitioner, who also raised a plea that the suit was liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule I I Civil Procedure Code as the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. The trial court framed issues and issue No. 6 related to the objection about non-disclosure of cause of action .This issue was to be argued as a preliminary issue. At this stage the plaintiff petitioner moved an application for the amendment of the plaint wanting to incorpate an averment in the plaint that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On the objection of the non petitioner, this amendment has been refused, firstly on the ground that this will introduce a cause of action in the plaint which is not there and a valuable right, which has accrued to the defendant will be lost. Another reason given was that more than three years have passed from the date of the agreement,which is sought to be enforced, and a fresh suit on it has become barred by time, therefore, by amendment a defect in a suit cannot be remedied so as to make it a proper suit from the date of its institution. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that certain allegations were made in the plaint about the readiness and willingness of the petitioner to perform his part of the contract and there was no objection raised in the written statement to the effect that the averments made were insufficient for purposes of granting a decree for specific performance. Inspite of this, the petitioner requested for an amendment. Inspite of this, the petitioner requested for an amendment. It is also contended that cause of action in a particular suit does not mean the allegation about one single fact but depends upon the bundle of facts disclosed in the plaint & it cannot be said that the present plaint does not disclose a cause of action and as such a right has accrued to the non petitioner, which cannot be taken-away by allowing the amendment. Referring to the case of (1) Jai Jai Ram Manoharlal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon AIR 1969 SC 1267 , reliance was placed on the following passage : Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvetence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by has blunder, he had caused injury to his apponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or carelese may have been the first omission. and however, late the proposed amendment the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. 4. Another case relied upon is (2) M/s Ganesh Trading Co. V. Moji Ram AIR 1978 SC 484 . wherein principles governing the amendment of pleadings were discussed. A suit in this case was instituted by a firm through its partner and the amendment was that it should be made a suit filed by a pertner of dissolved firm. This amendment was allowed holding that the provision of amendment is intended for promoting the ends of justice and not for defeating them. 5. In (3) Rama Nand Chaudhary V. Mst. Bhonri and others, AIR 1978 Punjab & Haryana 291 . application for the amendment of the plaint in a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale was allowed and he was permitted to add a paragraph that the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In (3) Rama Nand Chaudhary V. Mst. Bhonri and others, AIR 1978 Punjab & Haryana 291 . application for the amendment of the plaint in a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale was allowed and he was permitted to add a paragraph that the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In this case the stage for recording the evidence had not arrived and the application for leave to amend the paint had been moved at the earliest possible opportunity and this was weighed with the High Court in interfering with the order of the trial court refusing to permit the amendment on the ground that it would result in grave injustice to the defendant. In this case it was also held that the application for amendment need not be dismissed only because on the date of amendment, the suit would have been barred by time. 6. Before referring to the decisions, which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner, I may also took into the relevant provisions contained in the Specific Relief Act, Section 16 (c) of this Act, alongwith its explanation reads as under:- 16 Personal bars to relief:-Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person - (c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant Explanation.-For the purposes of clause (c). (i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the Court. (i) the plaintiff must aver performance of or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction. 7. Appendix A Forms No. 47 and 48 lay down the model forms for a plaint in a suit for the specific performance of contract. This provides that there has to be a separate paragraph in the plaint to show that the plaintiff has been and still is ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. 8. 7. Appendix A Forms No. 47 and 48 lay down the model forms for a plaint in a suit for the specific performance of contract. This provides that there has to be a separate paragraph in the plaint to show that the plaintiff has been and still is ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. 8. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has placed reliance on (4) Mahmood Khan and another V. Ayub khan and others, AIR 1978 All. 463 . and this is the decision on which the learned Munsif has based his finding. It has been held in this case that in view of the requirements of para 3 of the Form No 47 of Appendix 'A' of the First Schedule of the C P C and ire view of the mandate of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, it has become obligatory for the plaintiff not only to aver in the plaint. but also to prove by evidence that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The words 'aver' and 'prove' constitute two different meanings, first. there has to be an averment to this effect, and it is only when there is an allegation in the plaint, that the question of producing evidence in proof of it arises. Section 16 (c) of the Act is mandatory and if it is not complied with, then specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced against a person It has also been held that an amendment in the plaint in such a case cannot be allowed firstly because a valuable right has accrued to the defendant and secondly because the amendment seeks to bring out a cause of action in the plaint, which was conspicuous by its absence in the plaint as originally filed. 9. In (5) Raj Singhasan Choubey and others V. Sudama Prasad Sahi, AIR 1982 Patna 200 . in a suit for specific performance of contract, there was no averment that the plaintiff was all along ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract and it was observed that there is a distinction between an amendment which seeks to bring a cause of action which was absent in the plaint, and a cause of action. in a suit for specific performance of contract, there was no averment that the plaintiff was all along ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract and it was observed that there is a distinction between an amendment which seeks to bring a cause of action which was absent in the plaint, and a cause of action. which, though in the plaint, is defective, the amendment application can be allowed to rectify the defect, but, if a valuable right has accrued, the Court should be reluctant to allow the amendment. 10. The Allahabad decision as well as the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court were considered in this case. The Allahabad case was followed and the Punjab and Haryana case was distinguished. 11. The latest decision in this connection is (6) Palthur Honnur Sahb V. Bopanna Annapurnamma and others, AIR 1986 Karnataka 109 , wherein the provisions of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act have been examined in detail alongwith all authorities of the various High Courts on the subject of the amendment of the plaint, wherein it was not averred that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The amendment had been allowed by the trial court but was set-aside by the High Court In this case the amendment application was moved at the time of appeal but considering the principles, relating to the specific averments, which have to be made in a suit for specific performance. it was held that amendment cannot be allowed. 12. In (7) Ouseph Varghese v. Joseph aley and others, 1969 (2) SCC 539 , where there was no plea of readiness and willingness averred in the plaint, the decree passed by the courts below was set-aside. In this case the plaintiff had based his claim on an agreement, which was denied by the defendant, who in her statement alleged another contract. The plaintiff did not amend his plaint and prayed for any relief on basis of the agreement pleaded by the defendant nor he had informed the Court that he was ready and willing to accept the agreement pleaded by the defendant. In absence of pleadings, relief was not granted. 13. As has be n been above in M/s Ganesh Trading Co. In absence of pleadings, relief was not granted. 13. As has be n been above in M/s Ganesh Trading Co. V. Moji Ram (supra) the purpose of amendments is to promote the ends of justice and not to thwart the same but this has to be seen in the context of the case of both the parties. If the amendment seeks to alter the cause of action or to introduce an entirely new or inconsistent cause of action or to add some averment which the law makes it compulsory amounting virtually to the substitution of a new cause of action in place of the original or introduction of a cause of action which is absent in the plaint, the Court will refuse to permit it if it amounts to depriving the party, against which a suit is pending, of a right which may have accrued in its favour due to lapse of time. 14. In the present case the provisions of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act are very relevant. In my view these provisions place a restriction on the powers of the Court to enforce a contract in favour of a person in certain circumstances. This circumstance is his failure to aver and prove his readiness and willingness in the plaint. If he has failed to state so in his plant then a valuable right accrues to the other side of not getting the contract enforced against him. Such an averment is a statutory requirement, which when not complied with, becomes a lacuna in the case which cannot be allowed to be patched up by an amendment. It stands on a different footing from amendments which become necessary because of change of circumstances of a casual mistake. Permitting any amendment, which will defeat. the provisions of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act would amount to taking away a valuable right of the defendant. 15. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad Patna and Karnataka High-Courts. In the Punjab and Haryana decision the Court allowed the amendment merely because it was applied for at the earliest stage. 16. 15. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad Patna and Karnataka High-Courts. In the Punjab and Haryana decision the Court allowed the amendment merely because it was applied for at the earliest stage. 16. The proof in a suit for specific performance specially on matters which are the essentials of such a suit should be confined to what has been alleged in the plaint and if the allegations disclose sufficient grounds for grant of relief to the plaintiff, then he should be allowed the relief but he should not be allowed to amend or alter his cause of action. By making this observation, I do not wish to say that in the present case the plaintiff has not been able to disclose a cause of action and on account of this. his plaint should be rejected but the meaning is that he cannot be allowed to insert certain essential ingredients, which are necessary to be pleaded in a suit for specific performance. Whether in a particular case, relief can be granted to a person, would depend upon the construction of Section 16 (c) read with the second explanation to it. There may be a situation where there may be no obligation on the part of the plaintiff to say that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In the present case the plaintiff has averred that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and it could be possible that this pleading may be sufficient in the context of the contract between the parties to give relief to him. This view of mine finds support from the case in (8) Vadu V. UK Chand 1982 RLW 256 , in which the averments in the plaint were that nothing remains to be performed by the plaintiff in the contract. He had not averred that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In the circumstances of the case, it was held that substantial and due compliance of Section 16,c) had been made. 17. He had not averred that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In the circumstances of the case, it was held that substantial and due compliance of Section 16,c) had been made. 17. My conclusion is that in a suit for specific performance of contract allegations which are basis of such a suit cannot be allowed to be introduced by way of an amendment and at the same time it does not mean that in the present suit the plaint does not disclose a cause of action or is liable to be rejected. The amendment of the plaint refused by the court below in exercise of its jurisdiction is on basis of sound legal principles & does not require any interference in revision. The question whether relief can be granted to the plaintiff on basis of the pleadings is a question, which is not to be determined at the stage. 18. The revision has no force and is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******