M.N.BHANDARI,J. - (1.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is heard finally.
(2.) By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 11th May, 2015 whereby the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Section 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") has been allowed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/s submits that similar application was earlier dismissed by the Court below. A challenge to the said order was made before this Court. The writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application under Section 21(5) of the Act. The respondent/s -plaintiff then filed a fresh application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Section 21(5) of the Act and at this time, the application has been allowed in ignorance to dismissal of the application on the earlier occasion. It is in a case of specific performance that while making amendment in the plaint, a prayer was made to receive compensation arising out of the acquisition. It is looking to the fact that during pendency of the suit, land was acquired. The court should not have allowed the amendment as agreement of sell does not create right and title in the property so as to get the relief prayed for. A reference of judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. Pillamma & Ors. v. P. Rangaraju reported in AIR 1996 Karnataka 330 has been given. In the said case, similar relief was declined and the Court allowed to maintain the claim of damages under Section 21 of the Act. A further reference of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Jain v. Kishan & Ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 1891 has been given apart from the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Singh v. Nathu Singh reported in 1992 Civil Court Cases 487 (SC).;