B. N. CHATURVEDI, J.

( 1 ). By a judgment and decree dated 5th January, 1996, the suit of the applicant-respondent, for ejectment and mesne profits, was decreed by the Court of an Additional District Judge, Delhi. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, non applicants/defendants filed an appeal being RFA No. 181/96 before this Court on 6th April, 1996. On an application for stay of execution of the decree, by an order dated 3rd October, 1996, partial relief was granted and the execution of the decree, in so far as it related to recovery of possession, was stayed. The prayer for stay of execution of decree for mesne profits was, however, declined. The appeal was finally dismissed on 10th August, 2001.

( 2 ) NOW, review of the judgment in appeal is being sought by the applicant-respondent on the ground that the arguments advanced in relation to the rate of mesne profits for the period there was a stay of recovery of possession, which constituted part of written submissions, have gone unnoticed and as a result the same were not dealt with and there was no adjudication on that aspect of the matter. This, according to applicant/respondent, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record making out a ground for review of the judgment dated 10th August, 2001.

( 3 ) THE non applicants/defendants contest the application on the plea that there being no error apparent on the face of record, there is no ground for review of the judgment and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is added that having accepted the decretal amount of Rs. 46,34,417. 00 with costs of Rs. 20,000. 00 on 24th October, 2001 in full and final satisfaction of the decree, in addition to delivery of peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises, the applicant/respondent is estopped from challenging the judgment.

( 4 ) WHILE deciding the suit of the applicant/respondent, a decree for pendente lite and future mesne profits was passed in his favour at the rate sought by him in the plaint. However, in the course of hearing on the appeal, learned counsel for applicant/respondent pressed for an inquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC for determination of prevalent market rent to award pendente lite and mesne profits and to pass a decree at a rate higher than the one claimed in the plaint. This argument was, however, not accepted for the reasons stated in the judgment. Additionally, provisions of Order XLI Rule 33 CPC were also sought to be invoked in support of his claim for pendente lite and future mesne profits at a rate higher than the one sought in the plaint but with no success as the rate of pendente lite and future mesne profits as awarded by the learned Trial Court was maintained in appeal.

( 5 ) THE plea to compensate the applicant/respondent for the period during which execution of decree in relation to possession remained stayed, is another facet of the argument seeking payment of future mesne profits in respect of the suit premises at an enhanced rate than the one granted by the learned trial court in its decree.

( 6 ) TO reinforce his argument that in a case where a particular party is put to a disadvantageous position on account of interim orders passed by the Court, the parties are required to be put in the same position they would have been but for the interim orders of the Court, the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent referred to Supreme Court decisions in State of M. P. and Ors. 1997-1 SCC 156; AIR 1997 SC 993. Kanoria Chemicles and Industries Vs. U. P. State Electricity Board 1997 - 5 SCC 772 and Style (Dress Land) Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh. All these were matters where some interim orders came to be passed in the course of hearing on writ petitions. In the case of State of M. P. and Ors. it was laid down that the interim orders are always subject to final orders and the High Court can at the final stage correct or repair the damage caused by its interim order. M/s. Style (Dress Land) was a case where writ petitions had been filed c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document