ORDER 1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner, The C.R.P. is filed against the order in I.A. 4594/97 in O.S. 83/97 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thrissur. The suit was filed for specific performance of the contract to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that himself and defendants entered in to a contract to sell the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 41,23,000 on 18th March 1996 and an advance of Rs. 2 lakhs was given on 18th March 1996. Another advance of Rs. 3 lakhs was given on 15th April 1996. Thus on the whole an advance of Rs. 5 lakhs has been given to the defendants. The of the plaintiff of to the nominees of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, since the defendants were not willing to execute the sale deed, notice was issued. On receipt of notice, the defendants gave a reply stating untenable contentions. That is way the suit was filed. The plaintiff had averred in the suit that he was ready and continued to be ready for performing his part of the agreement. In the suit as a relief: He had prayed (a) for sale deed of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff after receiving the balance amount or alternatively he had prayed for return of the advance amount of Rs. 5 lakhs and for damages to the tune of Rs. 12 lakhs. The plaint was filed on 24th February 1997. Subsequently a written statement was filed by the defendants. In the written statement defendants raised a contention that they were always willing to perform their part of contract and that it was the plaintiff who committed breach of contract. Hence a counter claim was raised in the written statement. In the counter claim, the defendants had prayed for a decree of Rs. 80,50,163. The written statement was filed on 23rd June 1997. Subsequently in October 1997 the application for amendment of the plaint was filed. In the affidavit accompanying the application for amendment, it is stated that the plaintiff had agreed to sell plots to third person on the basis of the agreement executed with the defendants. Since the defendants did not execute the sale deed in time, the prospective purchasers have gone back. Because of this development, the plaintiff" is not in a position to honour the contract. Since the defendants did not execute the sale deed in time, the prospective purchasers have gone back. Because of this development, the plaintiff" is not in a position to honour the contract. He had stated that he is not at present ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Hence he wanted to amend the plaint by deleting the prayers for sale of the property and for granting him Rs. 17 lakhs. Instead of that, according to him, he is entitled to damages for breach of contract. Hence he has prayed for a decree for Rs. 7 lakhs which includes Rs. 5 lakhs given as advance. This was objected to by the defendants. Learned Subordinate Judge after hearing both the parties has dismissed the application for amendment. It is against that, the present C.R.P. is filed. 2. In the impugned order the court below says that the defendants had agreed to perform the contract in the written statement. Therefore the return of advance amount is only an alternative prayer. The plaintiff has already found fault with the defendants for not assigning the property and the suit was filed for that purpose. So when the defendants expressed their willingness, the plaintiff cannot withdraw the same and seek another remedy. Further the court below has also referred to the fact that there was a petition filed by the defendants directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance amount. Eventhough an order has been passed to that effect, the plaintiff has not deposited that amount. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner' Sri Ranjith Thampan contended that the plaintiff has got a choice either to pray for damages for breach of contract or ask for specific performance. Merely because earlier he had asked for specific performance, it does not prevent him from praying for a relief for damages for breach of contract. Further he stated that under S.23 of the Specific Relief Act, if the suit is dismissed, he will not be able to file suit for damages. 4. Learned senior counsel for the respondents Sri S. Venkita Subramonia Iyer submitted that this is a case where there is no breach on the part of the defendants. As a matter of fact, they have expressed their willingness to execute the sale deed. 4. Learned senior counsel for the respondents Sri S. Venkita Subramonia Iyer submitted that this is a case where there is no breach on the part of the defendants. As a matter of fact, they have expressed their willingness to execute the sale deed. One of the essential thing that is to be proved in a suit for specific performance is whether the plaintiff was ready and continues to be ready to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to amend the plaint when he finds that he is not able to perform his part of the contract. 5. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the court below went wrong in not allowing amendment of the plaint and dismissing the application. The plaint alternative payment of compensation in lieu of specific performance. The cause of action for the suit is breach of contract by the defendants. What the plaintiff now wants by the amendment is that he wants to alter the prayer by restricting the damages for breach of contract. He does not want a prayer for specific performance because according to him after the filing of the suit, because of circumstances stated by him he is not in a position to perform his part of the contract. It cannot be said that the nature of the suit and the cause of action are changed. Hence normally the amendment has to be allowed. But the learned counsel for the respondents brought to my notice the decision of the Privy Council in Ardeshir H. Mar v. Flora Sassoon AIR 1928 P.C. 208 . In that case what happened was that a suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement for sale of a property. During evidence, it was found that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. But without an amendment of the plaint the court below awarded damages in lieu of specific performance. This was set aside by the High Court of Bombay. The matter was taken to the Privy Council. The Privy Council, as a matter of fact, found that the contract itself was void because it was without the authority of the owner of the property. Incidentally it went into the question of grant of relief of damages was correct or not. The matter was taken to the Privy Council. The Privy Council, as a matter of fact, found that the contract itself was void because it was without the authority of the owner of the property. Incidentally it went into the question of grant of relief of damages was correct or not. The Privy Council was of the view that the amendment should not have been allowed for the following reasons: "For four years that suit had been pending as a specific performance action; the rights in these circumstances given to the plaintiff by S.27(b) of the statute, had made it impossible for the defendant by unconditional sale to deal with the property in suit. In other words, the plaintiff had, in effect, for four years and without any undertaking in damages on his part, held an effective injunction against the defendant's dealing with that property in derogation of his claim thereto as purchaser. In the next paragraph the Privy Council held that "the court should have the power of granting such an amendment in a proper case is salutary and indeed necessary. The possibility that the power will be exercised may, in certain cases, be the only effective check upon a defendant to a specific performance suit, who by delay, expensive appeals and other devices, sets himself to starve a relatively impecunious plaintiff into submission by making continued performance of the contract on his part, beyond his power." Thus in the Privy Council's case it was held that the amendment is possible, but in that case it was disallowed because of efflux of time. 6. In Rajendra Math v. Saraswati Press AIR 1952 Cal. 78 , Justice P. B. Mukharji, as he then was, had to deal with a similar situation. In that case, the suit was instituted on 17th December 1946. The plaintiff claimed specific performance of an agreement dated 31st July 1946. There was no pleadings in the plaint for breach of contract. But there was a claim for compensation in addition to or in substitution of the claim for specific performance. On 19th June 1,950 an application was filed for amending the plaint by removing the averments of readiness and willingness and to delete the claim for specific performance and to substitute a claim for damages simpliciter for breach of the agreement. The learned Judge after hearing both parties allowed the amendment. On 19th June 1,950 an application was filed for amending the plaint by removing the averments of readiness and willingness and to delete the claim for specific performance and to substitute a claim for damages simpliciter for breach of the agreement. The learned Judge after hearing both parties allowed the amendment. The Court observed as follows: No doubt an amendment is not permissible to alter the cause of action or the nature of the suit, but it is not altering the cause of action of a suit when a claim for specific performance of a contract is amended into a claim for damages for breach of such contract. The cause of action is breach of contract whether the claim is for specific performance or damages. The reliefs follow as a consequence of the breach of contract. If the party aggrieved is ready and willing to cany out his part and the party complained against commits the breach then the party aggrieved may either sue for specific performance or for damages. It is a choice of relief and not an election of remedy. Moreover, a claim for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act can co-exist with a claim for damages under the Indian Contract Act and claim under one Act cannot preclude claim on the statutes are satisfied. In a proper case therefore, a plaint for specific performance can be converted by amendment into a claim for damages for breach of contract and such an amendment does not amount to altering the cause of action or the nature of the suit." In Gopi Math v. Dulichand AIR 1979 Cal. 203 a similar claim was not allowed. In that case, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants whereunder the defendants was to make certain constructions before the specified date and lease them to the plaintiff. On failure of the defendant to construct accordingly the plaintiff filed a suit for the specific performance of the contract, also claiming damages in case specific performance could not be granted. During the trial the plaintiff was asked whether he was ready and willing to take the lease. His answer was 'no'. At present he claims damages only. The Trial Court awarded damages in lieu of specific performance. During the trial the plaintiff was asked whether he was ready and willing to take the lease. His answer was 'no'. At present he claims damages only. The Trial Court awarded damages in lieu of specific performance. The question was whether the Judgment of the lower court was correct .The court held as follows: "If the plaintiff would so choose to abandon his claim for specific performance and to pursue his claim for damages simpliciter then that must be done before the trial begins. If he asks for amendment of the plaint by abandoning the case of specific performance he cannot be allowed to do so." 7. In John v. Mammootty AIR 1985 Ker. 120 the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale and in the alternative for recovery of an amount as damages for breach of contract. At the trial, he pressed only for the relief for damages. A decree was passed for damages. When it was put into execution it was contended that the decree was null and void. The court held that the parties are entitled to the relief and it cannot be said that there was lack of any inherent jurisdiction. 8. On a conspectus of the above decisions, I am of the view that in the case on hand the amendment should have been allowed. One of the conditions laid down by the Privy Council was that amendment should have been sought before trial. Further according to plaintiff because of the breach on the part of the defendants, the persons who have entered into contract with him are now refusing to purchase. In such a situation, he is not able to honour the contract. The defendants also did not execute the sale deeds as per the agreement. 9. As observed by His Lordship Justice P. B. Mukharji in AIR 1952 Calcutta 78 the parties have got option either to claim damages or to pray for specific performance. Under S.23 of the specific Relief Act, he will not be able to file a suit for damages for breach of contract if the suit is dismissed. In the above view of the matter, I set aside the order of the court below. I.A. is allowed. C.R.P. is disposed of as above.