JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: - The plaintiff/Revision petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale but in the prayer column he has sought the relief as follows:- “It is, therefore, prayed that a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.01.2010, directing the defendant to pay the double the earnest money to the plaintiff in terms of the agreement to sell dated 15.01.2010 regarding the residential house in question, may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff.” 2. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed an application invoking Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The valuation paragraphs and the prayer clause are sought to be amended by the plaintiff. 3. The trial Court having held that the suit was originally filed praying for return of the earnest money alone permitted not the plaintiff to plead by way of amendment specific performance of the agreement for sale. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the plaintiff has pleaded in paragraph nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 that he had virtually sought for specific performance of the agreement for sale but unfortunately in the prayer column no direction was sought to the defendant to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement for sale and consequently the suit also was valued only for the amount to be refunded by the defendant. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons & others, [2009(6) Law Herald (SC) 3662] : 2010(1)RCR (Civil) would contend that the plaintiff who filed originally a suit for refund of money cannot be permitted to seek amendment of the plaint for a specific performance of the agreement for sale under the garb of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is his further submission that valuation column in the plaint would read that the plaintiff has only sought for refund of double the the amount of earnest money and not specific performance of the agreement for sale. 6. On a careful perusal of the plaint pleadings it is found that the plaintiff has actually intended to get the sale deed executed. The plaint itself was titled as a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale. 6. On a careful perusal of the plaint pleadings it is found that the plaintiff has actually intended to get the sale deed executed. The plaint itself was titled as a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale. He has pleaded that he has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that it was only the defendant who failed to execute the agreement for sale. To top it all, he issued a pre suit legal notice calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement for sale. In the prayer column he has specifically sought for relief for a decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 15.01.2010. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, he failed to incorporate a portion of the prayer to the effect that the defendant be directed to execute the agreement for sale. 7. In as much, as the plaintiff has virtually sought for specific performance of the agreement for sale and by mistake he has not sought for a prayer directing the defendant to execute the sale deed inspite of the fact that he has sought for a prayer for specific performance of the agreement for sale, in my view, the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not apply to the facts of this case. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the trial Court stands set aside and the application filed by the Revision petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of the Civil Procedure stands allowed. Accordingly, the Revision also stands allowed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————