Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Choudappa and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Choudappa Since Deceased by LRs. and Others – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3056 of 2023
Decided On : 03-09-2024
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11(d) and Order XX Rule 12 – Rejection of plaint – Suit for recovery of possession and for correction of mutation entries – Suit decreed with direction for holding inquiry regarding mesne profits from date of suit – Law nowhere provides for any specific time limit for initiation of such proceedings rather Court is obliged to undertake this exercise on its own – Such inquiry is nothing but continuation of suit and is in nature of preparation of final decree and as such, it cannot be said that any application moved as a reminder for completing inquiry is barred by limitation or is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay or laches – No limitation as an absolute rule could be provided in such matters and it depends upon facts and circumstances of each case whether proceedings have been initiated in a fairly reasonable time – Two Courts below having held that proceedings are not barred by limitation and that actually proceedings are not in nature of a fresh proceedings, rather than a continuation of old suit in form of a preparation of final decree, Court cannot find fault with said decisions – Court not inclined to grant any indulgence in the matter. (Paras 8, 12, 15 and 16)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 137 – Limitation – In a situation where no limitation stands provided either by specific applicability of Limitation Act or by special statute governing the dispute, Trial Court must undertake a holistic assessment of facts and circumstances of case to examine possibility of delay – When no limitation stands prescribed, it would be inappropriate for Court to supplement Legislature’s wisdom by its own and provide a limitation. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
Challenge in present special leave petition is to revisional order dated 22nd July, 2022 passed by High Court dismissing revision of petitioners arising from rejection of their application alleged to have been filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Findings of Court:
Petitioners are set at liberty to participate in inquiry before Trial Court in so far as determination of mesne profits are concerned.
Result : Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned senior counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in the present special leave petition is to the revisional order dated 22nd July, 2022 passed by the High Court dismissing the revision of the petitioners arising from the rejection of their application alleged to have been filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘C.P.C.’).
3. A suit for recovery of possession and for correction of mutation entries was filed by the respondents in the year, 1963 and it was decreed on 12.07.1973. The said judgment, order and decree specifically directs for holding an inquiry regarding mesne profits from the date of the suit i.e., 24.09.1963 in accordance with Order XX Rule 12, C.P.C. The aforesaid judgment, order and decree of the Court of first instance attained finality with the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioners in the year, 1980.
4. The respondents applied for the execution so as to obtain possession of the suit land sometime in the year, 1993 and after going through the entire exercise of execution, issuance of warrant for possession, the respondents were put into possession of the suit land property in the year, 2005.
5. It appears that sometime in 2014, an application purported to be under Section 141 C.P.C. or under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. was filed by the respondents for the determination of the mesne profits as directed by the judgment, order and decree dated 12.07.1973. Once such an application was filed, the petitioners moved application under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. contending that such an application is hopelessly barred by limitation and as such, it should be rejected outright.
6. The aforesaid application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. was rejected by the Trial Court and the revision thereof also met the same fate at the hands of the High Court. Thus, the Special Leave Petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the application allegedly moved by the respondents for an inquiry for mesne profits is in the nature of a second execution and since, it has been filed decades after the decree has attained finality, it is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that the aforesaid application is not in a nature of a second execution or in the form of a fresh suit or a plaint, rather it is only a reminder to the Court to complete the process of inquiry with regard to determination of mesne profits as has been directed by the Court of first instance vide judgment and order dated 12.07.1973. The said proceedings are actually proceedings under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. wherein the Court is obliged to hold an inquiry with regard to determination of the mesne profits from the date of institution of the suit and till the delivery of the possession.
9. Admittedly, the said inquiry has not been conducted and completed and that the law nowhere provides for any specific time limit for initiation of such proceedings rather the Court is obliged to undertake this exercise on its own.
10. In Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and Another vs. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan and Others, 2022 (16) SCC 71 : AIR Online 2022 SC 2841 the Court while dealing with the matter regarding a preliminary decree and the final decree in connection with the decree passed in a suit for partition opined that fundamentally there is a distinction between a preliminary and a final decree and that proceedings for final decree can be initiated at any point of time as there is no limitation for initiation of such proceedings. Either of the parties to the suit can move an application for preparation of the final decree or the Court may take action in this regard suo moto. In fact, after the passing of the preliminary decree, the Trial Court is obliged to proceed for the preparation of the final decree and should not adjourn the matter sine die. There is no need to file any separate application for the preparation of t
Determination of Mesne profits – Law nowhere provides for any specific time limit for initiation of such proceedings rather Court is obliged to undertake this exercise on its own.
The right to apply for mesne profits arises immediately after the preliminary decree and is not contingent on the occurrence of specific events.
A claim for future mesne profits is a distinct cause of action and can be validly pursued even if not initially included in a decree for possession, negating previous res judicata arguments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Order XX Rule 12 (1) (c) CPC in relation to the entitlement of mesne profits and the period for which they would be payable t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the procedure under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC for the passing of a decree for possession and mesne profits should be followed only when a suit is f....
Review petitions must demonstrate an evident error on the record; otherwise, the decision stands as rendered, emphasizing the distinct limitations of review compared to appeal.
The court has discretionary power to order local investigation commission for ascertaining the amount of mesne profit under Order XX Rule 12 and in the proceeding for mesne profit.
Mesne profits can only be claimed from the date of the eviction decree, not from the date of filing the suit, as possession remains lawful until the decree is passed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
