The Rajasthan High Court has held that the requirement of establishing due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not, by itself, operate as a bar to an amendment seeking incorporation of a relief falling within the ambit of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

It also held that under Section 22 of the Act, a plaintiff can seek amendment of the plaint to incorporate an alternative prayer for refund of earnest money or advance amount at any stage of the proceedings.

The Court upheld the Trial Court's order permitting the amendment in a writ petition filed by the defendant

The Bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit held, "Therefore, in view of the specific statutory mandate contained in Section 22 permitting incorporation of the requisite relief by way of amendment at any stage of the proceedings, the objection that such amendment could not have been allowed after commencement of the trial cannot be accepted. Consequently, having regard to the non obstante clause contained in Section 22 of the Act of 1963, the requirement of establishing due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC would not, by itself, operate as a bar to an amendment seeking incorporation of a relief falling within the ambit of Section 22."

Advocate Narendra Thanvi appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate DLR Vyas appeared for the Respondent

Brief Facts 

A writ petition was filed challenging an order passed by the Additional District Judge (“Trial Court”), whereby the Trial Court had allowed an application preferred by the respondent–plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and permitted amendment of the plaint by incorporating a prayer for recovery of earnest money /advance amount in the suit for specific performance.

A suit was filed seeking specific performance of an agreement whereby the parties had agreed that respondent-plaintiff would supply mineral stone to petitioner-defendant at the rate mutually settled between them. It was pleaded in the plaint that despite execution of the agreement and receipt of the advance amount, the agreed quantity of mineral stone was not supplied.

Contentions of the Parties

The Petitioner/Defendant submitted that the proposed amendment was barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. However, vide the impugned order, the Trial Court had allowed the application and permitted incorporation of the proposed amendment in the plaint.

It was contended that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the amendment sought was neither bona fide nor liable to be permitted at such a belated stage, when the matter had already reached the stage of plaintiff's evidence.

On the contrary, the Respondent/Plaintiff submitted that, in view of Section 22 of the Act of 1963, a prayer for refund/recovery of the advance amount may be incorporated by way of amendment at any stage of the proceedings.

It was further submitted that the amendment sought in the prayer clause would not alter the nature and character of the suit, as the relief of recovery/refund of the amount already paid was sought only as an alternative relief in the event that, notwithstanding proof of the agreement, a decree for specific performance was ultimately declined.

Observations/Findings of the Court

The Court perused Section 22 of the Act of 1963 and observed that the provision contains a non-obstante clause and specifically enables the plaintiff to claim such reliefs as are stipulated therein and to which she may be entitled, by way of amendment at any stage of the proceedings.

It was noted that the said provision, operates notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, has an overriding effect over the general provisions governing amendment of pleadings, including the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The Court, while noting that the Specific Relief Act is a special law, observed, "Therefore, in view of the specific statutory mandate contained in Section 22 permitting incorporation of the requisite relief by way of amendment at any stage of the proceedings, the objection that such amendment could not have been allowed after commencement of the trial cannot be accepted."

The Court relied on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in K.R. Suresh v. R. Poornima & Ors.[2025] and held that upon an examination of the statutory scheme of Section 22 of the Act of 1963, in the facts of the present case, it was mandatory for the Court to allow the amendment sought for incorporation of the alternative relief for refund of the advance amount/earnest money.

"While interpreting the non-obstante clause contained in sub-section (1) of Section 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that said provision has an overriding effect over the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It has further been held that the use of the expression "shall" in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 22 makes it mandatory for the Court to allow an amendment for inclusion of the reliefs contemplated under said provision at any stage of the proceedings", it was observed.

It also referred to the judgment by the Karnataka High Court in Shri Mohammadrafi & Ors. v. Bandenawz & Ors.[2025] and said that the proposed amendment falls squarely within the illustrative categories where a liberal approach is warranted.

It was observed that a hyper-technical application of the due diligence requirement under the proviso cannot be permitted to defeat the overriding objective of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, namely, to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties and prevent multiplicity of proceedings. 

The Court also noted that the High Court does not assume the role of an appellate forum, re-appreciating evidence or substituting its view for that of the inferior court, but confines interference to instances of patent perversity, grave dereliction of duty, and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, or jurisdictional overreach occasioning manifest injustice.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition as being sans merit.

Cause Title: Ishwar Chand Jangid v. Manoj Kumar Sharma [Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:45424]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Narendra Thanvi 

Respondent: Advocate DLR Vyas

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: