RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Arun Bhansali, J.
Basanti Devi & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Lrs of Anand Kanwar & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 94/2019 Connected With S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 97/2019
Decided On : 26-08-2021
CPC - Execution - Section 151 - The court interpreted the provisions of Section 151 CPC regarding the execution of decrees and the payment of mesne profits, concluding that the appellants were required to deposit amounts separately for each suit as per the trial court's decree.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants sought to set aside an order from the executing court regarding the execution of a consolidated decree for possession and mesne profits, claiming that the required payment was misinterpreted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were required to deposit mesne profits separately for each suit as per the trial court's decree, and dismissed the application under Section 151 CPC.
Issues: Whether the appellants were required to deposit mesne profits separately for each suit as per the trial court's decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the interpretation of the decree by the appellants was incorrect, and they were obligated to comply with the payment terms for both suits.
Result: The application under Section 151 CPC was dismissed, but the appellants were granted two months to comply with the payment of mesne profits.
ORDER
1. The matters come up on an application filed by the appellants under Section 151 CPC seeking setting aside of order dated 03.08.2021 passed by the executing court and seeking a direction that the executing court shall not proceed further with execution of the impugned decree dated 21.12.2018.
2. It is, inter alia, indicated that a consolidated decree dated 21.12.2018 was passed by the trial court in two suits being Civil Original Suit No. 239/2005 and 57/2005. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeals being SBC FA Nos. 94/2019 and 97/2019 were filed by the appellants-defendants.
3. By a common order dated 12.04.2019 passed by this Court, it was, inter alia, directed as under:-
Further, during the pendency of the appeal, it would be required of the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent No. 2 by way of mesne profit. The amount shall be paid by 10th of each subsequent month. First such payment shall be made by 10th May, 2019. The decreetal amount and month to month payment be deposited in the saving bank account of respondent No. 2, particulars whereof, shall be supplied by learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 to learned counsel for the appellants within a period of one week.
In case the appellants do not deposit the decreetal amount or make three consecutive defaults in making payment of monthly amount of mesne profit to the respondents, the interim order granted by this Court shall stand vacated automatically.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that during pendency of the appeal, the respondents have proceeded with the execution of the decree, in which, certain properties have been ordered to be attached/attached.
In view of the interim order granted hereinbefore, the proceedings taken by the executing court, regarding attachment of the properties, shall be revisited/appropriate orders shall be passed by the executing court in this regard on the next date.
The stay applications stand disposed of."
4. It is claimed by the appellants that as the Court directed payment of Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No.2 by way of mesne profit, the same pertained to both the suits/both the premises and the said amount has been deposited/being deposited by the appellants, however, the trial court during the course of execution has come to the conclusion that the appellants were required to deposit Rs. 5,000/- in each case, which determination is incorrect and, therefore, prayer has been made as noticed hereinbefore.
5. A reply to the application has been filed disputing the contentions raised in the application.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions in consonance with the prayer made in the present application, however, made alternative submissions that if the Court comes to a different conclusion, the appellants may be granted time to deposit the amount of mesne profit in terms of the order dated 12.04.2019.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the decree passed by the trial court as well as the order passed by this Court.
8. The trial court while passing the decree, ordered for payment of mesne profit in both the suits i.e. Rs. 2,000/-.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that the amount of Rs. 2,000/- decreed by the trial court pertained to both the suits separately.
10. By order dated 12.04.2019, this Court ordered for payment of amount of mesne profit decreed by the trial court and further ordered for payment of mesne profit during the pende
The court clarified that mesne profits must be paid separately for each suit as decreed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to trial court orders during execution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant a stay of execution of an ex-parte decree, subject to the petitioner complying with the undertaking of payment of m....
Non-compliance with specific court directions and lack of justification for non-compliance may lead to the dismissal of an application seeking modification of an order.
The court upheld the appellate court's conditional stay of execution, emphasizing the tenant's obligation to pay rent and mesne profit as per the decree.
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....
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.