ORDER : This revision is directed against the order, dated 17.02.2023, allowing I.A.No.13 of 2023 in O.S.No.68 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the relief paragraph after relief ‘b’ to add relief ‘c’ and other paragraphs ‘d’, ‘e’ and ‘f’. 2. Heard Sri C. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. T.Sowmya, learned counsel representing Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The amendments sought and the consequential amendment to be incorporated in the prayer portion read as under: “Consequential amendments:- a) To pass a decree directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property after remitting the balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-within the time fixed of this Honourable Court on a duly stamped paper supplied by the plaintiff in the name and form required under law. b) In case the defendant fails to execute the above said sale deed as directed above, the Honourable Court may itself execute the sale deed for and on behalf of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property at the costs of the plaintiff. c) For refund of surplus amount of Rs.7,25,000/-together with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of agreement, dt.22.07.2012 till the date of payment. d) To put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property e) For costs of the suit, and f) For such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.” 4. Originally, the suit was filed by the petitioner against the respondent for the reliefs shown above as ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘d’, ‘e’, ‘f’ which are shown as ‘a’ to ‘e’. Now, by filing this petition, relief ‘c’ is sought to be added and thus, the proposed amendments included original prayers and the proposed amendment with change in the serial order of the reliefs. 5. Now, by filing this petition, relief ‘c’ is sought to be added and thus, the proposed amendments included original prayers and the proposed amendment with change in the serial order of the reliefs. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that the suit agreement, dated 22.07.2022, was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for purchase of Ac.5.00 cents (five acres) for consideration of Rs.17,50,000/-out of which an advance amount of Rs.16,00,000/-was paid, but, the suit relief is restricted to execution of sale deed for Ac.2.50 cents only because the defendant had already sold Ac.2.50 cents to third party, by name, Puvvala Murali Krishna, out of total extent of five acres. Now, the petitioner contends that he had inadvertently not asked the relief of refund of the surplus amount of Rs.7,25,000/-together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of agreement of sale, dated 22.07.2012, till the date of payment when the suit was filed. 6. The petition was opposed by the defendant by filing counter mainly stating that it is a delay tactic and the petitioner was filing petition after petition and that the plaintiff ought to have asked the relief when the suit was filed, but not at a subsequent stage, that too, at the fag-end of the disposal of the suit, particularly in view of the amendment (Act 22 of 2002) made to Order VI Rule 17 CPC which mandates that such amendment cannot be permitted after commencement of trial of the suit unless the petitioner establishes that such amendment could not be taken earlier in spite of exercise of due diligence, whereas in the present case, there is no such diligence established by the petitioner. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court allowed the petition in obedience to Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and by relying on the decision in Kutbuddin Riyazuddin Shaikh v. Subhash Rangnath Wadane, 1998(2) Bom CR 818 . 8. Having been aggrieved by the order, the respondent/ defendant filed this revision petition contending that the order impugned was passed without duly considering the rigor of proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC and placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of A.P in Siluveru Lakshmamma v. Siluveru Sankaraiah and others, 2008 (5) ALD 322 . 9. Having been aggrieved by the order, the respondent/ defendant filed this revision petition contending that the order impugned was passed without duly considering the rigor of proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC and placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of A.P in Siluveru Lakshmamma v. Siluveru Sankaraiah and others, 2008 (5) ALD 322 . 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted arguments on the lines of grounds of revision. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vidya Bai and others v. Padmalatha and another, 2009 (2) SCC 409 regarding the scope of jurisdiction of Court under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, particularly in view of the proviso appended thereto. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff submitted that the trial Court has rightly allowed the application in view of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act which is a substantive provision allowing an amendment for refund of amount being made at any stage of the proceedings in a suit for specific performance. 11. In the present case, though the application is filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the substantive provision on which relief is based is Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, which the trial Court also relied on. Therefore, the petition cannot be examined from the prospective of only proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, but there must be a conjoint reading of this provision with Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 12. This Court in the earlier decision in Tallapureddy Narasimha Reddy v. Kandula Surya Narayana Reddy (C.R.P.Nos.1047 & 1048 of 2020, dated 16.11.2022) had already examined both the provisions in the same context, the relevant portion of the which is reads as hereunder: ‘Before proceeding further, for better understanding of the provisions, Order VI Rule 17 CPC and Sections 21 & 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, are excerpted herein below: Order VI Rule 17: Amendment of Pleadings.---The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. 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.” Sections 21 & 22 of Specific Relief Act: 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 [in addition to] such performance. (2) xx xx xxx (3) xx xx xxx (4) xx xx xxx (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.—… …. …” 22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of earnest money, etc.—(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (5 of 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. (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. A perusal of the aforesaid provision under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act indicates that a plaintiff, in a suit for specific performance, is entitled to seek the prayer for refund of the amount paid as earnest money or deposit, as an alternative relief and no such relief can be granted unless it is specifically claimed, but Court shall at any stage of the proceeding, allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint, of course, on terms for including a claim for such relief. This provision begins with a non-obstante clause that ‘notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908’, meaning thereby that whatever is in Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, prevails over contrary provided in CPC. But, it does not totally exclude application of CPC, so long as it is not contrary to what is in Section 22 of the Act. A look at the provision of Order VI Rule 17 CPC indicates firstly that Court has discretion to permit amendment since word ‘may’ is used, while Section 22 of the act used the word ‘shall’ making it compulsory. Secondly, while Section 22 of the Act makes no difference as to the stage of the proceedings to permit amendments, Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits liberally any amendment to the pleadings before commencement of trial, whereas any such amendment, if taken after the commencement of trial, the proviso restricts the discretion of the Court by using the expression ‘unless the petitioner shows that in spite of due diligence such amendment could not have been taken before the commencement of the trial’. These two areas are contrary to the proviso to Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act. Thus, the parties need not establish ‘due diligence’ as contemplated under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC even if amendment is sought at any stage of the proceedings. These two areas are contrary to the proviso to Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act. Thus, the parties need not establish ‘due diligence’ as contemplated under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC even if amendment is sought at any stage of the proceedings. So, it is clear that the scope of Section 22(2) proviso is wider and unrestricted in its application insofar as amendment for the relief for possession, partition and separate possession, in addition to relief of specific performance or for refund of the earnest money or deposit paid or any other reliefs which he may be entitled, in case claim for specific performance is refused. Similar to Section 22(2) and proviso to it, Section 21(5) puts a rider that no compensation shall be awarded under that Section unless the plaintiff has claimed such compensation in the plaint, however, its proviso says Court shall at any stage of the proceedings, allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint for including the claim for such compensation. Thus, when there is express proviso permitting unconditional right of seeking permission to make amendment for any such relief by the plaintiff at any stage of the proceeding, such right is not limited by discretion of Court in Order VI Rule 17 CPC or condition in the proviso to it. The only restriction on the right under Section 22 is that the plaintiff has to seek permission to make the amendment, and it cannot be made without Court allowing it. In this regard, it is relevant to refer paragraphs 58 and 66 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, AIR 2002 SC 4256, which read as follows: “58. Section 22 has a non-obstante provision which overrides the Code of Civil Procedure. A plaintiff who claims specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property, may in an appropriate case ask for possession, partition and separate possession of the property, in addition to specific performance. The Plaintiff may also claim any other relief including the refund of earnest money or deposit paid, in case the claim for specific performance is refused. Corresponding to the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 21, Sub-section (2) of Section 22 stipulates that such relief cannot be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed. The Plaintiff may also claim any other relief including the refund of earnest money or deposit paid, in case the claim for specific performance is refused. Corresponding to the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 21, Sub-section (2) of Section 22 stipulates that such relief cannot be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed. However, the proviso requires that the court shall at any stage of the proceedings allow the Plaintiff to amend the plaint to claim such relief where it has not been originally claimed on such terms which may appear just. 66. The two provisos referred to above, deal with the question of permitting the Plaintiff to amend his plaint. It is not, as if, in the absence of these two provisos, it is not permissible in law for the Plaintiff to carry out an amendment in his pleading by introducing a relief for enhanced compensation. Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure does confer power on a Court to allow a party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just. This Rule does not stop at that, but it further says that all such amendments should be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. It is pertinent to note that this provision which empowers the court in its discretion to permit a party to amend his pleadings, was already on the statute book, when the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was enacted. It can, therefore, be presumed that when the latter legislation was on the anvil, the Parliament was aware of this power of the court to permit amendment of pleadings. Therefore, it cannot be successfully urged that a suit for specific performance falling under the provisions of the Act, 1963 would not be governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is, therefore, clear that to such a suit the provisions contained in Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply and a Plaintiff who has earlier failed to incorporate the reliefs for compensation or who has incorporated the reliefs for compensation but seeks amendment in the same, could seek the permission of the court to introduce these reliefs by way of amendment.” 13. As such, there is no irregularity committed by the trial Curt in allowing the petition and hence, no interference is required in this revision. However, since the revision petitioner apprehends unnecessary delay in disposal of the suit, both the parties can be directed to cooperate for expeditious disposal of the suit, more particularly, as the suit is of the year 2015 and the Supreme Court directed earlier disposal of the old suits. As can be seen from the amendment sought, no pleading in the plaint was amended except the prayer. As such, since the prayer is already supported by the facts pleaded, there is no need for any additional evidence. However, as the application is allowed, the defendant must be given an opportunity to file additional written statement and additional issue also needs to be famed. As such, no long time is required to conclude the proceedings of the trial and go for final disposal of the suit. As such, the trial Court as well as both the parties are directed to proceed further for final disposal of the suit, as indicated above, and the trial Court shall dispose of the suit within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.