In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court disallowed the claim for damages raised in lieu of specific performance of contract citing the reason that the plaintiff had not specifically sought the relief of compensation in the plaint. The Court referred to Section 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act which says: 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. The issue is related to contractual disputes between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant had filed a plaint seeking specific performance of the agreement with the respondent and sought a perpetual injunction against the termination notice issued by the respondent. Though the High Court granted the relief of injunction, the relief of specific performance was denied citing the bar in Section 14 (1) (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The High Court observed that the contract involves the performance of future unspecified obligations and duties, and it would not be possible for the Court to enforce specific performance of the material terms of the contract. The High Court further held that it was an open-ended agreement involving the continuous flow of technology for innovating and overhauling the products which are upgraded from time to time to meet world-class standards. Therefore, though the termination agreement was found to be not in accordance with law the specific performance of the contract was not granted. The Supreme Court noted that the judgments relied on by the appellant were distinguishable on facts. The Court held: The scope of Section 21 (4) and (5) was examined by this Court in Shamsu Suhara Beevi v. G. Alex and Another (supra). This Court referred to the Law Commission of India's recommendation that in no case the compensation should be decreed unless it is claimed by a proper pleading. However, the Law Commission was of the opinion that it should be open to the plaintiff to seek an amendment to the plaint, at any stage of the proceedings in order to introduce a prayer for compensation, whether in lieu or in addition to specific performance. In the said case no claim for compensation for breach of agreement of sale was claimed either in addition to or in substitution of the performance of the agreement. Admittedly, there was no amendment to the plaint asking for compensation either in addition or in substitution of the performance of an agreement of sale.