Judgment :- P.Sathasivam, J. Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial judge in Application No.2593 of 1999 filed by the plaintiff in C.S.No.30 of 1998 for amendment to her plaint in para 15-A she filed the above appeal. 2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed Civil Suit No.30 of 1998 before the original side of this Court for specific performance of an agreement dated 12. 1995. Pending the suit, the plaintiff has filed Application No.2593 of 1999 in the said suit seeking permission to amend para 15-A of the plaint for inclusion of the words “her nominee or nominees”. The said application was contested by the respondent herein and by order dated 29. 1999, learned trial Judge, after holding that what is sought for is not a casual omission, but a wanton omission and the proposed amendment would cause much hardship to the defendant than the plaintiff dismissed the said application, against which the present original side appeal is filed by the plaintiff. 3. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Theplaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement of sale dated 12. 1995 whereby the defendant agreed to sell schedule mentioned property in favour of the plaintiff or her nominee or nominees on certain terms as mutually agreed. Since the defendant failed to perform her part, the plaintiff laid the present suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 12. 1995 or in the alternate to refund the advance amount with interest at 12 per cent paid by her at the time of the agreement. For the present, it is unnecessary to go into the further details regarding the suit claim. However, she has prayed for decree directing the defendant to perform the agreement dated 12. 1995 and convey the schedule mentioned property in favour of the plaintiff free from all encumbrances and put the plaintiff in vacant possession of the said property. The respondent here has filed a written statement disputing various averments made by the petitioner. Thereafter, the plaintiff has sought for an amendment to the plaint, particularly para 15-A for inclusion of the words “her nominee or nominees”. The respondent here has filed a written statement disputing various averments made by the petitioner. Thereafter, the plaintiff has sought for an amendment to the plaint, particularly para 15-A for inclusion of the words “her nominee or nominees”. Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior counsel, by drawing our attention to certain clauses in the agreement of sale, contended that the plaintiff is entitled to amend her plaint as claimed, more particularly in the light of Sec.22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Clause 4 of the agreement runs as follows: “The sale shall be to the party of the second part or to her nominee or nominees.” Again in clause 6, it is stated as follows: “The party of the 1st part agrees that the sale of the Schedule mentioned property shall be subject to the following conditions: (a) The party of the Ist part shall obtain, the” no objection certificate “ from the I.T. Appropriate Authority for the sale, to the party of the second part of her nominee, or nominees of the schedule mentioned property and produce the same to the party of the second party and for that purpose, shall apply to the authorities concerned as per law.” Accordingly, it is contended that by virtue of the above clauses, the plaintiff in the present suit for specific performance is entitled to obtain a decree directing the defendant to convey the schedule mentioned property in favour of her or her nominee or nominees. It is further stated that as per the terms, the talks took place on 111. 1997 and on the proposal of the plaintiff to the defendant, she agreed to execute and register the sale deed by executing a irrevocable power of attorney in her favour to enable her to develop the properly and to be sold to the nominees. Since there was no response to this proposal, the plaintiff is constrained to file the said suit for enforcing the agreement. The prayer in the plaint does not contain the words, “sale to nominee or nominees of the party of the second part“. In such circumstances, in order to include the words” or her nominee or nominees“, after the words” in favour of the plaintiff“, she has filed the application for amendment. The prayer in the plaint does not contain the words, “sale to nominee or nominees of the party of the second part“. In such circumstances, in order to include the words” or her nominee or nominees“, after the words” in favour of the plaintiff“, she has filed the application for amendment. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the respondent, defendant, strenuously contended that the defendant had applied for permission for sale of the property in favour of the plaintiff, namely Sooriyakala, Sreekumar from the appropriate authority, Income Tax Department by an order dated 13. 1996 and also obtained Income Tax Clearance Certificate on 27. 1997 in favour of Sooriyakala, Sreekumar. Accordingly it may not be possible for the defendant to apply for transfer of certificates in the name of plaintiffs nominees since it is impermissible under the Income-Tax Rules and Laws. He also contended that the plaintiff cannot compel the defendant to secure a certificate in the name of different persons to suit her convenience. 5. We have already referred to clauses 4 and 6 in the agreement, wherein the first party has agreed to sell the schedule property in favour of the second party or to her nominee or nominees and also obtained no objection certificate from the Income-tax Appropriate Authority for sale to the second party or her nominee or nominees. Hence, as rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, the proposed amendment does not introduce any new case, nor is aimed to fill up the lacuna. No doubt, the respondent-defendant has expressed certain difficulties in obtaining. No objection certificate from the appropriate authority of the Income-tax Department in the name of the nominee or nominees of the plaintiff. However, it is worth-while to refer Sec.22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. ”22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund or earnest money, etc.: (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 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-sec.(1) shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed: Provided 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) Thepower of the court to grant relief under clause (b) of Sub-sec.(1) shall be without prejudice to its powers to award compensation under Sec.21” As per Sub-clause (2), no relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of Sub-sec.(1) shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed. Though the agreement of sale enables the plaintiff to ask the defendant to execute a sale-deed in her favour or in favour of her nominee or nominees, the said clause” Nominee or nominees “ has not been specifically prayed for in the plaint. Proviso to sub-clause (2) of Sec.22 enable the plaintiff who has not claimed such relief in the plaint to amend the plaint by way of an appropriate application, and the court is empowered to grant her relief at any stage to amend the plaint on such terms. It is clear that as per Sec.22 of the Act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, any person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property may, in an appropriate case, ask for any other relief to which he may be entitled. Proviso to Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.22 clearly says that the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including claim for such relief. We have already observed that as per the suit agreement dated 12. 1995, the defendant is bound to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or her nominee or nominees. This is clear from para 13 of the said agreement. A conjoint reading of the said clauses in the agreement as well as Sec.22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, particularly proviso to clause (2) of Sec.22 of the said Act, we are of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for amendment as claimed. This is clear from para 13 of the said agreement. A conjoint reading of the said clauses in the agreement as well as Sec.22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, particularly proviso to clause (2) of Sec.22 of the said Act, we are of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for amendment as claimed. We are unable to agree with the contention of the respondent-defendant that the proposed amendment is aimed to fill up the lacuna and also to protract the proceedings. No doubt, the defendant has expressed certain difficulties in obtaining no objection certificate from the appropriate authority of the Income-tax Department and if the defendant is asked for fresh Income-tax clearance certificate in the name of plaintiffs nominee or nominees, no doubt, it would cause certain hardship to her. However, as expressed earlier, in view of necessary clauses in the agreement, the defendant has to execute sale deed not only in favour of the plaintiff, but also in favour of her nominee or nominees as per her direction. It is worth-while to refer the following observation of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Lal v. M/s.Hazari Lal Kishori Lal Babu Lal v. M/s.Hazari Lal Kishori Lal Babu Lal v. M/s.Hazari Lal Kishori Lal A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 818: “11. Sec.22 enacts a rule of pleading. The Legislature thought it will be useful to introduce a rule that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the plaintiff may claim a decree for possession in a suit for specific performance, even though strictly speaking, the right to possession accrues only when suit for specific performance is decreed. The Legislature has not made a statutory provision enabling the plaintiff to ask for possession in the suit for specific performance and empowering the court to provide in the decree itself that upon payment by the plaintiff of the consideration money within the given time, the defendant should execute the deed and put the plaintiff in possession. 12. The sectionenacts that a person in a suit for specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property, may ask for appropriate reliefs, namely, he may ask for possession, or for partition or for separate, possession including the relief for specific performance. These reliefs he can claim, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the contrary. These reliefs he can claim, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the contrary. Sub-sec.(2) of this section, however, specifically provides that these reliefs cannot be granted by the court, unless they have been expressly claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. Sub-sec.(2) of the section recognised in clear terms the well-established rule of procedure that the court should not entertain a claim of the plaintiff unless it has been specifically pleaded by the plaintiff and proved by him to be legally entitled to. The proviso to this Sub-sec.(2), however, says that where the plaintiff has not specifically claimed these reliefs in his plaint, in the initial stages of the suit, the court shall permit the plaintiff at any stage of the proceedings, to include one or more of the reliefs, mentioned above by means of an amendment of the plaint on such terms as it may deem proper. The only purpose of this newly enacted provision is to avoid multiplicity of suits and that the plaintiff may get appropriate relief without being hampered by procedural complications.” In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and in view of the specific clauses in the agreement which enable the party of the first part to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or her nominee or nominees and in view of the proviso to Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.22 of the said Act, we hold that the plaintiff is entitled to amend the plaintiff as claimed, in order to enable the court to decide all the points in controversy”. 6. In the light of what is stated above, we are unable to sustain the reason given by the learned trial judge in dismissing the application for amendment; accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned Judge dated 29. 1999 and we allow application No.2593 of 1999 as prayed for subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000 to the respondent defendant who had been misled by the plaintiff into spending time and money for obtaining the Income-tax clearance certificate in the plaintiffs name. Original side appeal is allowed. Time to carry out the amendment is four weeks from today. Time for payment of costs is two weeks from today. Consequently, the stay petition is closed.