The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment to Order 22 Rules 3 and 4 CPC allows for impleading the legal representatives without any limitation as long as the suit is pending, and the court has the authority to fix reasonable mesne profits to compensate the decree holder for loss occasioned by the delay in execution of the decree.

Judgment

Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 05.09.2023 (Annexures P-9 and P-10) passed by the lower Appellate Court whereby the application filed for impleading the legal representative of the plaintiff-respondent has been allowed and by the second order the operation of the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2019 has been stayed subject to the defendant-petitioners depositing the arrears of mesne profits within one month and also depositing the future mesne profits for every month by the 7th of the following month.

2. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners would contend that the application filed by Mohinder Kaur Bath for being impleaded as a legal heir was time barred and should have been rejected. He cited Jatav Panchayat Committee & Anr. vs. VIIth Additional District Judge, Etawah & Ors. [AIR 2000 All. 253] in support of his contention. It is also contended that initially all the legal heirs of the plaintiff - Rajinder Singh Bath i.e. his wife, son and daughter had filed an application dated 23.07.2019 for impleading them as legal heirs and subsequently a fresh application dated 04.01.2022 was filed only by his wife, Mohinder Kaur Bath, for being impleaded as a legal heir of Rajinder Singh Bath. According to counsel since there was a dispute regarding the legal heirs to be impleaded, the application has wrongly been allowed by the lower Appellate Court. The second impugned order regarding mesne profits is challenged by contending that the stay application filed with the appeal was not listed on 05.09.2023 and therefore the lower Appellate Court erred in passing an order thereon. It is further contended that the amount assessed is in excess and the market rate of rent is much lower.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has submitted that by being impleaded as a legal heir of the original plaintiff Rajinder Singh Bath, the wife is permitted to pursue the litigation. It is further submitted that in any event the defendant-petitioners only want to delay the proceedings and that they have no concern with the impleadment of the legal heirs of the original plaintiff - Rajinder Singh Bath. It is argued that with the amendment to the CPC, there is no limitation for bringing on record the legal heirs. Reliance has been placed on Ram Sarup & Ors. vs. Dilbagh Singh [2004(1) RCR Civil 94], Banta Singh vs. Khajan Singh [2001(2) RCR Civil 326], Pradeep Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar Sharma [2009(48) RCR Civil 358]. It is contended that since the defendant-petitioners are wanting to remain in possession of the suit property after the passing of the judgement and decree against them by the Trial Court, they are bound to pay the mesne profits for use and occupation. He argued that since a money decree had been passed against the defendant-petitioners, the interest of the plaintiff-respondent has to be suitably safeguarded before staying their eviction. Reliance has been placed on M/s Martin & Harris Private Limited & Anr. vs. Rajendra Mehta & Ors. [2022 (2) RCR (Rent) 109], Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau vs. Bhabhlubhai Virabhai & Co. [2005(2) RCR Civil 672] and Congress Committee (I) (Rural) & Anr. vs. S. Brahmgyan Singh Majithia (since deceased) through his LRs & Ors. [2022(2) RCR Rent 212].

4. Heard counsel for the parties.

5. In the present case the original plaintiff, Rajinder Singh Bath, filed a suit for mandatory injunction and for mesne profits stating that he is owner of the suit property and that defendant-petitioner No.2 is his relative and she was allowed to reside in the house as a licensee. However, later on due to some complications the plaintiff issued a notice for vacating the suit property and also for recovery of mesne profits from the defendant-petitioners. The defendant-petitioners in their written statement claimed that they are in exclusive possession of the suit property and have become owners by way of adverse possession. The suit for mandatory injunc