JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - This application has been filed by plaintiff seeking amendment in paras 6, 8 and in prayer clause of the plaint. 2. In para 6, amount of Rs. 1,82,72,000/- and 67,10,000/- is sought to be replaced by Rs. 52,80,000/- and 22,20,000/- respectively. In the end of para 6, it is proposed to be added that defendants No. 3 and 4 have paid an amount to defendants No. 1 and 2 and Smt. Nirmla Malhotra more than the amount depicted as value of sale deed as per prescribed circle rate in sale deeds under reference. 3. In the end of para 8 and in prayer clause, alternative plea and prayer for passing a decree for recovery of earnest money along with interest has been proposed to be incorporated. 4. It is stated that despite due care and diligence, figures of amount proposed to be substituted and plea for granting alternative relief could not be incorporated in plaint by plaintiff. As per plaintiff, he had approached a well qualified and experienced Advocate and submitted all papers for his consideration, who best of his ability and knowledge had drafted plaint and filed suit as he considered to be appropriate for redressal of grievance of plaintiff. 5. It is submitted that it is a fact that during pendency of suit, plaintiff changed his counsel who, for the first time, had appeared in this case on 1.10.2015 and on next date of hearing i.e. on 29.10.2015 issues were framed, where after an application filed by defendant, for framing additional issue, remained pending till 31.3.2016. After framing additional issue on 31.3.2016, the case was ordered to be listed for recording evidence on behalf of plaintiff and it was only thereafter, while going through record of the case and preparing list of witnesses, it transpired that there was inadvertent incorrect narration of facts relating to sale consideration with respect to sale deeds No. 2311 and 2312 dated 24.11.2012 executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 regarding suit land and also that additional alternative relief, for which plaintiff would otherwise be entitled in facts and circumstances, was omitted to be incorporated in the plaint. 6. 6. It is also submitted on behalf of plaintiff that though, in present case, trial has commenced on framing of issues, but same is at the initial stage as evidence of plaintiff is yet to commence and therefore, there is no legal impediment for allowing the application as proposed amendment is necessary not only for just, effective and complete adjudication and but also for final determination of real controversy involved in case and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. It is also claimed that proposed amendment of plaint, though is material, but shall not be changing or altering the nature of lis between the parties nor will it cause any prejudice to defendants. 7. Lastly it is submitted that on account of omission of another counsel earlier representing plaintiff, correct figure of amount and alternative relief could not be pleaded despite due diligence and care on the part of plaintiff as plaintiff depends upon expertise opinion for pleadings and claiming relief. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that case of plaintiff falls in exception carved out in proviso of Rule 17 of Order 6 of CPC as it is evident from facts of the case that inspite of due diligence the plaintiff could not raise the matter before commencement of trial. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that on the first page of sale deeds in question, two values of sale deeds have been mentioned. One is value of sale deed as per prescribed circle rate and another is value of sale deed i.e. amount of consideration which is claimed to be paid to seller and it appears that inadvertently, at the time of filing the suit, instead of value of sale consideration mentioned in sale deed, value of sale deed as per prescribed circle rate has been mentioned in plaint and therefore, amendment sought for replacing amount of sale deed value is, in fact, correction of amount, as per documents on record. 10. It is also submitted on behalf of plaintiff that power to award compensation under section 21 of Specific Relief Act 1963, for desisting from performance of contract, can be exercised by Court only in case such compensation is claimed by plaintiff and this Section permits incorporation of prayer for such compensation in plaint at any stage by allowing the plaintiff to amend the plaint. Reliance has also been put upon provision of section 21 (5) of Specific Relief Act, 1963, wherein proviso provides that where plaintiff has not claimed any compensation in plaint, the Court shall, at any stage of proceedings, allow him to amend the plaint, on such terms as may be just, for including a claim for such compensation. 11. Learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff states that amendment has to be related back to the date of filing of suit and in present case agreement to sell was executed on 18.8.2012 and suit was filed on 9.7.2014 i.e. within two years of execution of agreement and thus, though cause of action for claiming relief of compensation has to arise on denial of execution of agreement but even, in any case, if it is to be taken from date of filing of suit then also amendment seeking recovery of earnest money in alternative in suit is within limitation as suit was filed within two years after execution of agreement. 12. It is also contended that even if proposed amendment for alternative relief is to be related with date of filing of application for amendment, then also, the application was filed on 21.7.2016 and as per agreement dated 18.8.2012, last date for executing the sale deed in pursuance to the said agreement was 30.11.2013, on which date defendants No. 1 and 2 failed to turn up for execution of Registry and application for amendment has been filed on 21.7.2016 i.e. within three years from date of cause of action to claim the alternative relief i.e. from 30.11.2013, on failure of defendants No. 1 and 2 to execute the sale deed on that date in pursuance to agreement as limitation period is to commence from the date of refusal to act upon the agreement or last date in agreement fixed for execution of sale deed. 13. Learned counsel for plaintiff, in alternative, relying upon pronouncement of the Apex Court in Pankaja and another v. Yellappa, (2004) 6 SCC 415 submits that time barred claim can also be permitted by way of amendment in plaint. 13. Learned counsel for plaintiff, in alternative, relying upon pronouncement of the Apex Court in Pankaja and another v. Yellappa, (2004) 6 SCC 415 submits that time barred claim can also be permitted by way of amendment in plaint. Further relying upon judgment of Apex Court in Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, (2009) 2 SCC 409 , it is also submitted that amendment of pleading can be allowed even after commencement of trial, if conditions precedent for it that inspite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial, is satisfied. He submits that in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no lapse or lack of due diligence on the part of plaintiff and he exercised requisite prudence of ordinary litigant for filing the suit and claiming the relief in plaint. 14. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, contesting application on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2, submits that so far as the amendment to figure of amount and corresponding addition, related thereto in para 6 of plaint is concerned, the same is not opposed. However, he contends that incorporation of the plea of alternative relief in plaint is not permissible under law. It is submitted that counsel was changed prior to framing of issues and issues were framed on 29.10.2015 and application for framing additional issues, filed on behalf of defendants, listed for first time on 3.12.2015, was decided on 31.3.2016, but application for amendment was filed on 31.7.2016. Therefore change of counsel by plaintiff is also not a justifiable ground for seeking amendment in plaint at this stage as the plaintiff as well as his counsel has failed to act with due diligence and care which was mandatory on their part. According to him, change of counsel is no ground for seeking amendment as the counsel representing plaintiff now, is conducting the case before framing of issues i.e. since 1.10.2015 and thereafter an application filed by defendants for framing additional issues was adjudicated and decided on 31.3.2016 and no application for amendment was preferred till July 2016 even after changing the counsel in the year 2015. He submits that nature of suit is specific performance of agreement and grant of alternative relief is discretion of Court, which cannot be claimed as a matter of right and plaintiff had engaged the counsel for filing the suit either for execution of sale deed or refund of earnest money and as such no plea for refund of amount was taken. Therefore, at this stage proposed amendment incorporating alternative relief is not permissible. 15. It is argued that plea of due diligence and care on the part of plaintiff and omission to incorporate plea and prayer of alternative relief by counsel representing the plaintiff earlier, is also not born out from contents of application filed for amendment and he urges that submissions made on behalf of plaintiff are not based upon pleadings of the application and the application is also lacking material particulars with respect to wrong, imperfect or ill-advise on the part of counsel and in case where two reliefs are available to plaintiff and only one relief is pressed in plaint then other relief will be deemed to have been abandoned and once plaintiff has chosen to file suit claiming one relief only and not chosen to assert another claim, he will be precluded from incorporating another claim at this stage after commencement of trial particularly in view of mandatory provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC prohibiting plaintiff from carrying out such amendment in plaint. 16. It is submitted that plea of alternative claim is not legal plea and therefore, it cannot be incorporated in plaint beyond limitation period and execution of sale deeds by defendants No. 1 and 2 was well within knowledge of plaintiff at the time of filing of suit and he was having option to claim the alternative plea, but plaintiff opted not to claim the said relief and now he is not entitled for amendment in question as it is against the principle related to amendment of pleadings. 17. It is also submitted that case law cited by plaintiff clearly lays down that there would be liberal approach in amendment of written statement but rigours for amending the plaint are hard. Change of Advocate cannot be a valid change of circumstances to seek amendment in plaint. It is alleged that plaintiff has not come with clean hands to Court and his pleadings are vague in nature. 18. Change of Advocate cannot be a valid change of circumstances to seek amendment in plaint. It is alleged that plaintiff has not come with clean hands to Court and his pleadings are vague in nature. 18. Learned counsel for defendants No. 3 and 4, besides adopting the arguments addressed on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2, submits that plaintiff is not entitled to proposed amendment for incorporating plea of alternative relief in view of provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 CPC, as plaintiff has failed to include the whole claim in plaint at the time of filing the suit and for omission to do so, he has to be considered to have abandoned the claim being sought to be incorporated by way of proposed amendment. 19. In rebuttal, learned counsel for plaintiff submits that in case plea of counsel for defendants No. 3 and 4 is accepted, then provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC will be redundant as in such eventuality amendment in plaint even prior to commencement of trial for addition of relief will be impossible. 20. I have considered the pleadings on record as well as arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion, Order 2, Rule 2 CPC and Order 6, Rule 17 CPC operate in different, distinct, and separate fields. Order 2, Rule 2 prohibits filing of subsequent suit for claiming a relief on the same cause of action on the basis of which earlier suit was filed omitting to claim the relief in said suit without leave of Court to sue for such relief in subsequent suit. Whereas, Order 6, Rule 17 CPC provides right to either party to alter or amend his pleadings, which may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, subject to limitation provided in this provision itself. Pleadings also include the relief claimed in plaint and therefore subject to conditions precedent, plaintiff has a right to amend the claim during pendency of suit. Thus, plea taken by counsel for defendants No. 3 and 4 that in view of Order 2, Rule 2 CPC plaintiff is not entitled to amend the prayer clause for seeking alternative relief for its omission in original plaint, is not sustainable. 21. It is settled law that Courts exist to dispense justice. Thus, plea taken by counsel for defendants No. 3 and 4 that in view of Order 2, Rule 2 CPC plaintiff is not entitled to amend the prayer clause for seeking alternative relief for its omission in original plaint, is not sustainable. 21. It is settled law that Courts exist to dispense justice. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in adjudication of justice between the parties. Basic principle of law of procedure is that no proceedings in a Court of law should be allowed to be defeated on mere technicalities and provisions of law, part of adjective law dealing with procedure alone, must be interpreted in a manner so as to subserve and advance the cause of justice rather than to defeat it. Procedure is meant only to facilitate the administration of justice not to defeat the same and Court should not bind itself by shackles of technicalities. (See: Ghanshyam Dass and others v. Dominion of India and others, (1984) 3 SCC 46 , B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and another (2000) 1 SCC 712 , Tilak Raj v. Baikunthi Devi (dead) by LRs (2010) 12 SCC 585 , & Banwari Lal v. Balbir Singh (2016) 1 SCC 607 ) . 22. It is also settled law that procedural norms, technicalities and procedural law evolve after years of emprical experience and to ignore them or to give them short shrift inevitably defeats justice, but at the same time, Courts in every case are not bound by letter of CPC, rather expected to exercise discretion in accordance with spirit of CPC to do substantial justice to the parties. (See: Westarly Dkhar and others v. Sehekaya Lynghod (2015) 4 SCC 292 ) 23. Dominant purpose to allow amendment is to minimise litigation and in case omission or commission by party in pleadings, sought to be amended, is because of sufficient cause, party should be permitted to amend his pleadings including prayer clause but definitely subject to limitation provided in the provisions for amendment itself. 24. In present case, though trial has commenced but evidence is yet to be recorded. 24. In present case, though trial has commenced but evidence is yet to be recorded. In view of section 21 of Specific Relief Act 1963, plaintiff has a right to amend the plaint for awarding compensation for breach of contract at any stage of proceedings as proviso of Sub-section 5 of Section 21 states that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such compensation in plaint, the Court ''shall'', at any stage of proceedings, allow him to amend the plaint, on such terms as may be just, for including a claim for just decision. Limitation of Proviso of Rule 17 of Order 6 CPC is to be read with provisions of section 21 of Specific Relief Act and by giving harmonious construction to these provisions, plaintiff is entitled for amendment in prayer clause for claiming compensation for breach of contract. 25. Amendment for replacing amount of sale deed value is not opposed by defendants. Even otherwise it is a curable bona fide mistake occurred due to mention of two values on first page of sale deed(s). Such mistakes, clerical in nature, should be allowed to be rectified for sub-serving cause of justice. 26. As per submissions made on behalf of plaintiff, the reliefs sought to be added in plaint, appear to be within limitation. Even otherwise, in case defendants claim that relief is time barred then this disputed issue will be a subject matter of trial. In such eventuality, defendants have every right to raise the said issue in suit itself and in case the relief is found to be time barred, the same can be disallowed at the time of final decision. 27. Change of counsel may not be a valid ground always for justifying amendments in plaint in every case and also at any stage of suit. In present case, it is not only the change of counsel which weighed for allowing the application for amendment but the provisions of section 21 of Specific Relief Act and also dependency of plaintiff on expert i.e. Advocate for pleadings related to prayer for relief available to him under law are also the reasons for which present application deserves to be allowed. Plaintiff is not seeking an amendment in the facts for declaration, disclosure or correctness of which he is primarily responsible. Plaintiff is not seeking an amendment in the facts for declaration, disclosure or correctness of which he is primarily responsible. Here is a relief which was necessary to be incorporated for complete and final decision of the case but was omitted to be prayed for by counsel at the time of filing the suit. 28. Further, suit has yet commenced but at the initial stage. It is no where stated in plaint that plea for refund of amount was ever abandoned by plaintiff. More so, abandonment of relief would have been subject matter of subsequent suit. Therefore, omission to claim compensation for breach of contract at the time of filing of plaint is not a valid ground to reject the application of amendment for incorporating the said reliefs at this stage. 29. Plaintiff approached an experienced counsel, narrated his grievances and submitted his papers to him, who prepared the plaint. There is no lapse in exercising due diligence and care on the part of plaintiff. Plaintiff is not an expert and he depended for pleadings on expertise of his counsel. Even otherwise the amendment sought to rectify error or mistake in plaint is neither fraudulent nor mala fide but based on bona fide reasons coupled with right to amend the plaint available under section 21 of Specific Relief Act 1963. The proposed amendment is not going to change the nature of suit and also it will not take away any right of defendants causing prejudice to their interest or resulting into loss of right of their defence. Recording of evidence has not started yet and it is not a case where defendants cannot be placed in same position, had the plaintiff originally filed plaint correctly. 30. For aforesaid reasons in given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that inspite of due diligence, there is mistake in mentioning correct value of sale deed and also omission to claim alternative relief and therefore, prayer for amendment of plaint, as sought, deserves to be allowed. Therefore, application is allowed. Amendment in plaint, as prayed for, is permitted. Amended plaint filed along with application is taken on record. Application stands disposed of.