Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J
MOTILAL KOOLWAL SON OF LATE SHRI RAMLAL JI KOOLWAL – Appellant
Versus
SMT. SITADEVI WIFE OF LATE SHRI MAKHKHANLAL JI KOOLWAL – Respondent
CW / 11424 / 2019
Order :
1. The present civil writ petition has been filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.31/2017, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for requiring defendant No.10-Naresh Kumar Chiraniya to deposit the amount of mesne profit in the court.
2. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of mesne profit before the trial court in which the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC before the trial court for direction to the defendant No.10 to deposit the amount of the mesne profit in the trial court but the trial court vide order dated 25.01.2019 dismissed the said application.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that the trial court committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs. So, the petition filed by the plaintiffs be allowed and the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the trial court be set-aside.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the impugned order dated 25.01.2019.
5. The trial court vide order dated 25.01.2019 while dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs clearly mentioned that rights and liabilities are yet to be decided, so at that stage, no case was made out for issuing direction to the defendant No.10 to deposit the amount of the mesne profit in the court. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
6. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of.
The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the application for mesne profits, stating that rights and liabilities were yet to be determined, thus no direction to deposit was warranted.
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 court held that claims involving arrears of rent and mesne profits constitute a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, necessitating judicial consideration and trial.
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 trial Court has discretion in framing issues and did not err in dismissing the defendants' application as the proposed issues were already incorporated.
Mesne profits should be deposited in a fixed deposit during appeals, not paid to landlords, unless special reasons are provided.
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.
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
