https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184340 Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act was treated as an enabling pleading rule meant to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, so a separate prayer for possession was not invariably required where possession was consequential to specific performance. The proviso to section 22(2) was read broadly to permit amendment of the plaint at any stage, including execution, and section 28 of the Specific Relief Act supported continued court control over the decree. On that basis, the court held that possession could be granted in execution proceedings even though it had not been specifically claimed in the plaint, and a separate suit for possession was unnecessary. en-us Fri, 29 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jul 2016 11:13:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184340 Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act was treated as an enabling pleading rule meant to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, so a separate prayer for possession was not invariably required where possession was consequential to specific performance. The proviso to section 22(2) was read broadly to permit amendment of the plaint at any stage, including execution, and section 28 of the Specific Relief Act supported continued court control over the decree. On that basis, the court held that possession could be granted in execution proceedings even though it had not been specifically claimed in the plaint, and a separate suit for possession was unnecessary. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184340