ORDER : – Heard finally with the consent of parties. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by plaintiff/petitioner against order dated 23-3-2021 passed in Civil Suit No. 18-A/2018 by the Ist Civil Judge, Class-I, Manawar, District Dhar, whereby his application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC seeking leave of the Court to amend his plaint has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff has instituted an action on 25-4-2018 for specific performance of contract dated 23-1-2015. The written statement to plaintiff’s claim has been filed by defendant No. 1 on 3-8-2018. On 13-3-2020 the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint to plead that cause of action has always been accruing to him. He further prayed for amendment of relief clause of the plaint to add the relief that in case specific performance cannot be granted in his favour then compensation in lieu thereof be granted. He also sought to add the heading in the list of documents filed by him. The application was contested by defendant No. 1 by filing his reply. By the impugned order plaintiff’s amendment application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the same is belated and has been proposed after commencement of trial i.e. after filing of affidavits in evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses and no reason has been given by plaintiff for the delay in proposing the amendment. 3. Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that the amendments sought for by plaintiff are only formal in nature and for claiming an additional relief which is permissible as per section 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act itself hence the embargo contained in the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC would not be applicable hence his application ought to have been allowed by the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for defendant No. 1 submits that amendment has been proposed by plaintiff at a highly belated stage and no reason for the delay in proposing the same was given in the application hence the same has rightly been rejected by the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for defendant No. 1 submits that amendment has been proposed by plaintiff at a highly belated stage and no reason for the delay in proposing the same was given in the application hence the same has rightly been rejected by the trial Court. Reliance have been placed by him on the decisions of this Court in Paraschand s/o Bherulal Jain and others vs. Rao Rajendra Singh and another 2014(3) M.P.L.J. 331 , Manoj Jain vs. Suman Goyal, 2014(4) M.P.L.J. 143 , Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another, 2009(3) M.P.L.J. 122 and M/s Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manohar Lal, 2017(4) M.P.L.J. 717. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. The amendment has been proposed by plaintiff for seeking the alternate relief of compensation to him in case his claim for specific performance of contract cannot be granted. The said relief has been claimed in terms of section 21 of the Specific Relief Act which is as under : 21. Power to award compensation in certain cases : (1) In a suit for specific performance of a contract, the plaintiff may also claim compensation for its breach, either in addition to, or in substitution of, such performance. (2) If, in any such suit, the court decides that specific performance ought not to be granted, but that there is a contract between the parties which has been broken by the defendant, and that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for that breach, it shall award him such compensation accordingly. (3) If, in any such suit, the court decides that specific performance ought to be granted, but that it is not sufficient to satisfy the justice of the case, and that some compensation for breach of the contract should also be made to the plaintiff, it shall award him such compensation accordingly. (4) In determining the amount of any compensation awarded under this section, the court shall be guided by the principles specified in section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872). (4) In determining the amount of any compensation awarded under this section, the court shall be guided by the principles specified in section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872). (5) No compensation shall be awarded under this section unless the plaintiff has claimed such compensation in his plaint : Provided that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such compensation 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 compensation. Explanation. The circumstance that the contract has become incapable of specific performance does not preclude the court from exercising the jurisdiction conferred by this section. 7. The embargo to propose amendment after the trial has commenced is provided for under the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC which is as under : “Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 8. Both the aforesaid provisions have to be read harmoniously. While proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless due diligence in making the application is proved, however, as per proviso to section 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act, the Court has the power at any stage of the proceedings to allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint for including a claim for compensation in case specific performance cannot be granted. 9. While proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC prohibits making of amendment after commencement of trial, proviso to section 21(5) of Specific Relief Act specifically permits such amendment to be made at any stage of proceedings meaning thereby that the same can be made even after trial has commenced. Thus, if amendment is proposed by plaintiff in terms of proviso to section 21(5) as aforesaid, the embargo as contained in proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC would not be applicable. Thus, if amendment is proposed by plaintiff in terms of proviso to section 21(5) as aforesaid, the embargo as contained in proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC would not be applicable. The trial Court has hence erred in rejecting plaintiff’s amendment application in that regard only on the ground that trial in the case has commenced wholly omitting to consider that it had the power to permit such amendment even subsequent to commencement of trial. 10. The other amendments claimed for by plaintiff are purely formal in nature and do not prejudice defendant No. 1 in any manner hence they ought to have also been allowed by the trial Court. In such circumstances, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for defendant No. 1 do not help him in any manner. 11. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order passed by trial Court cannot be sustained and is consequently set aside. Plaintiff’s amendment application stands allowed however with no order as to costs.