SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1455

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vishal Narichania a/w Ms. Sushma Singh and Sayali Sawant.
For the Respondents: Mr. Pradeep Thorat a/w Ms.Neha Bhosale, Ms.Laveena Tejwani, Mr. Gaurang Mehta and Ms.Neelam Dedhia i/by NDB Law, Mr. Sean Wassoodew, Ms. Namita Shirke i/by Mr. Jaydeep Thakkar.

Headnote:

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:

    “a) the Defendants be ordered and decreed to hand over to the Plaintiffs vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property viz. land bearing C.S.No.560 and 561, Final Plot No.268 TPS II of Mahim Division situate at Mogul Lane, (earlier known as Lady Harding Road), Tulsi Pipe Road, known as Senapati Bapat Road, situated at Mahim (W). Mumbai-400 016, along with structures standing thereon;

(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:

    “3. Are the plaintiffs entitled for recovery of possession and mesne profits? ”

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:

    “8. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get mesne profit as prayed ? If yes, how much ? ”

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

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top