IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
Mr. Nikhilesh Kesharichand Jhaveri and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
M/s. New Era Fabrics Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7607 Of 2021
Decided On : 21-12-2023
mesne profits - Recovery of Possession - Order XX Rule 12 of CPC - [Rule 12(1)(ba) of Order XX, CPC] - The Court has the discretion to pass a decree for future mesne profits along with the decree for possession if the claim for future mesne profits is an agreed ascertained sum of money. An enquiry into future mesne profits is necessary when the claim for future mesne profits is not an agreed ascertained sum of money. The Bombay Amendment does not place an embargo on the power of the Court to direct an enquiry into future mesne profits. The order of the Appellate Court expunging the affidavit of evidence of PW-2 cannot be faulted.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the recovery of possession of immovable property and the claim for mesne profits. The plaintiff sought past and future mesne profits, but the defendant argued that the claim was only for future mesne profits. The trial Court rejected the defendant's application to expunge the evidence of PW-2, but the Appellate Court set aside the trial Court's order and expunged the evidence of PW-2 from the record.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the claim in the plaint was for an enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC for future mesne profits. The Court held that the trial Court has the discretion to pass a decree for future mesne profits along with the decree for possession if the claim for future mesne profits is an agreed ascertained sum of money. An enquiry into future mesne profits is necessary when the claim for future mesne profits is not an agreed ascertained sum of money. The Bombay Amendment does not place an embargo on the power of the Court to direct an enquiry into future mesne profits. The order of the Appellate Court expunging the affidavit of evidence of PW-2 cannot be faulted.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of Order XX Rule 12 of CPC and the Bombay Amendment, and whether the trial Court has the discretion to pass a decree for future mesne profits along with the decree for possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the trial Court has the discretion to pass a decree for future mesne profits along with the decree for possession if the claim for future mesne profits is an agreed ascertained sum of money. An enquiry into future mesne profits is necessary when the claim for future mesne profits is not an agreed ascertained sum of money. The Bombay Amendment does not place an embargo on the power of the Court to direct an enquiry into future mesne profits.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the Court upheld the order of the Appellate Court expunging the affidavit of evidence of PW-2.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. With consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing.
2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, exception is taken to the order dated 24th September, 2021 passed by the Appellate Court in Revision Application No.97 of 2021 reversing the order of the trial Court dated 11th August, 2021 rejecting the Petitioner’s application below Exh.606 filed to expunge/discard and rejected the Affidavit of examination-in-chief of PW-2.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court. T.E.&R. Suit No.48/62 of 2009 was filed against the defendant seeking the following prayers:
(b) pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order of injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 from further parting with possession of the suit property in any manner dealing with or transferring any right or interest in the suit property of any third party under any arrangement whatsoever;
(c) defendant No.1 restrained from collecting any amount whatsoever from any of the other Defendant in respect of any portion of the suit property and Defendant No.2 to 7 be restrained from paying any amount under any arrangement whatsoever to Defendant No. 1;
(d) pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit, Defendant Nos.2 to 6 be directed to deposit all the amounts in this Hon'ble Court;
(e) pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit, that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and direct Defendant No.1 to submit details of payments being recovered including copies of agreements entered into with Defendant No.2 to 6 and pay over to the Plaintiff whatever money/compensation that they receive from any third party under any arrangement whatsoever, on account of mesne profits;
(f) pending the hearing. and final disposal of the above suit, that this Hon'ble Court be pleased' to appoint a fit and proper person as Court Receiver in respect of the suit property under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
(g) ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (b) to (f) above;
(h) an inquiry into mesne profit be ordered under Order XX Rule 12 al the Code of Civil Procedure 1908;”
4. Issues came to be framed on 1st April, 2016 and the Issue No.3 relevant for the purpose of the present petition reads as under:
5. On 16th November, 2019, in view of the amended plaint and the amended written statement, additional issues were framed and Issue No.8 came to be framed which reads thus:
6. An application came to be filed by the defendant no.1 for recasting Issue No.8 as regards the mesne profits which came to be rejected vide order dated 6th March, 2020, as against which Revision Application filed stood dismissed.
7. Subsequently, the plaintiff adduced evidence of PW-2, who is an Architect and Structural Engineer and Government Approved Registered Valuer to prove the quantum of mesne profits to be paid by the Respondent No.1, in which the PW-2 deposed that the mesne profits/market rent prepared by him in respect of the suit premises is for the period from March 2009 to February, 2020 i.e. from the date of the suit notice dated 11th February 2009 to 29th February, 2020.
8. An application below Exh.606 came to be filed by the defendant no
Consep India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cepco Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Dalhousie Properties Ltd. Vs. Surajmull Nagarmull
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 right to apply for mesne profits arises immediately after the preliminary decree and is not contingent on the occurrence of specific events.
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.
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....
Mesne profits are payable from the date of lease termination, and the Appellate Court can extend payment periods and correct errors in lower court decisions.
Mesne profits must be quantified based on credible evidence reflecting prevailing market rates, with the burden of proof resting on the claimant to substantiate the claims.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.