Statutory right to amend plaint for compensation cannot be defeated by delay or parallel land acquisition proceedings.

Where the Specific Relief Act permits a plaintiff to seek compensation or damages in lieu of or in addition to specific performance, the court must allow amendment of the plaint at any stage to include that relief. That statutory mandate limits the discretion under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, so delay alone cannot justify refusal. A separate land acquisition apportionment proceeding also does not bar amendment, because it concerns distribution of compensation and does not determine the plaintiff's independent claim in the suit. The refusal to permit amendment on those grounds was therefore unsustainable, and the revision succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint could be amended to include a claim for compensation in lieu of or in addition to specific performance at any stage of the proceedings, and whether the amendment could be refused on the grounds of delay or the pendency of a land acquisition apportionment proceeding.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 makes it obligatory for the Court to permit amendment of the plaint for inclusion of a claim for compensation at any stage of the proceedings. The corresponding proviso in Section 40(2) of the same Act adopts the same mandatory approach for damages. The discretion under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is therefore controlled by the specific statutory mandate where compensation or damages are sought under these provisions. Pendency of a separate proceeding under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act does not by itself justify refusal of the amendment, because that proceeding concerns apportionment of compensation and does not decide the merits of the plaintiff's independent claim in the suit. Delay also cannot defeat the statutory right to seek such amendment.

Conclusion: The amendment ought to have been allowed, and refusal on the grounds of belatedness or parallel proceedings was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition succeeded, and the order refusing amendment was set aside, thereby permitting the plaintiffs to pursue the additional relief in the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly commands that amendment be allowed at any stage for including a claim for compensation or damages, the Court must give effect to that mandate and cannot reject the amendment merely because it is belated or because a separate related proceeding is pending.

---