JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the plaintiff whose application for seeking amendment for the plaint filed under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance for the contract that is the agreement for sale dated 27.11.1995 and 11.04.1996 in respect of a piece of land against the defendant. After the written statement was filed the plaintiff moved the present application on the grounds mentioned therein seeking amendment of the plaint with a view to amend the plaint as mentioned in para 3 and 4 of the said application dated 18.01.2003. The substance of the amendment in short is that the plaintiff wants to incorporate the plea of being dispossessed and the consequential relief of the grant of possession in the event of the suit being decreed in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The learned trial Court rejected the said application by the impugned order dated 22.01.2005 primarily on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to disclose the date on which the plaintiff was threatened and dispossessed as mentioned in para 5 of the order. It may be stated here that so far as the impugned order is concerned the same leaves much to be desired. The learned counsel for the petitioner plaintiff drew the attention of the Court more particularly to Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act and submitted that even in cases where the relief of possession has not been sought, it is open for the plaintiff to seek such relief and for this purpose the Court is empowered to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint at any stage subject to such terms in accordance with law which the Court thinks fit. 4. I have considered the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as follows : 22. Power to grant relief for possession partition, refund of ea rnest money, etc. 4. I have considered the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as follows : 22. Power to grant relief for possession partition, refund of ea rnest money, etc. - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 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 : 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) The power of the Court to grant relief under clause (b) of Sub-section (1) shall be without prejudice to its powers to award compensation under Section 21. 5. From the above it is clear that under Sub-section 2 of Section 22 it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to make a specific prayer in respect of possession and only in that event a decree to that effect shall be passed by the learned trial Court. However, where such prayer has not been made in the plaint the Court has been empowered to allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint at any stage of the proceedings of the suit for including such relief subject to terms which the Court may deem just and proper. 6. A perusal of the impugned order, which the learned counsel for the respondent also does not dispute goes to show that the learned trial Court has not adverted itself to the specific provisions of Section 22 quoted above and has merely dismissed the application on the general ground that the same does not disclose the date of the alleged threat meted out to the petitioner plaintiff and the alleged date on which the plaintiff was dispossessed. 7. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that in the written statement that was filed the defendant had specifically pleaded in the year 2001 itself that the plaintiff is not in possession and that the suit cannot be decreed as no relief of possession has not been sought. Be that as it may, since Sub-section 2 of Section 22 enables the Court in a suit for specific performance for the contract to permit a plaintiff to amend the suit with a view to incorporate the relief of possession at any stage of the proceedings and the present application has been filed at the initial stage when even the issues have not been framed, I am inclined to accept this writ petition and allow the plaintiffs application dated 18.10.2003 for amendment of the plaint subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the defendant which shall be a condition precedent for allowing the amendment and filing of the amended plaint. 8. This writ petition 1is allowed' in view of the fact that the learned trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in dismissing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code and over looking the provisions of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.Writ petition allowed. *******