22 MCA-577-2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.577 OF 2017

[Smt. Amritpal Jagmohan Sethi ..Vrs.. Haribhau Pundlik Ingole]

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

appearanfices, Court's orders of direfictions Court's or Judge's

order and Registrar's orders.

Shri. S. V. Bhutada, Advoficate a/w Shri. Y. Maheshwari, Advoficate

for the Applificant

Shri. O. A. Ghare, Advoficate for the Non-Applificant.

CORAM :

N. B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

DATE :

17

^th AUGUST

, 2021.

1.

Heard the learned Advoficate for the

Applificant and the learned Advoficate for the

Non-Applificant.

2.

This applification is fled seeking review of

the judgment (Annexure-A) passed by this Court in

Civil Revision Applification No.40 of 2017, thereby

rejeficting the revision applification fled by the

Applificant.

3.

The learned Advoficate for the Applificant

submitted that in ficivil revision applification, a speficiffic

ground (K) was raised, wherein it was ficontended that

the Trial Court has direficted an inquiry into future

mesne proft under Order XX Rule 12(1)(fic) of the

Code of Civil Proficedure from the date of suit till the

delivery of vaficant peaficeful possession of the suit

22 MCA-577-2017

2

property by the Defendant to the Plaintif. As per the

ficatena of the deficisions of this Court as well as the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is held that a proteficted

tenanficy is terminated from the date of deficree for

evifiction. Consequently at the most, the tenant may

be liable to pay the damages or mesne proft only

from the date on whifich deficree of evifiction is passed

against him. Therefore, the fnding of the Trial Court

direficting an inquiry into the mesne proft from the

date of suit, and ficonfrmed by the Appellate Court,

ficannot be sustained. This aspefict ficoupled with the

deficisions relied upon by the Applificant were not

ficonsidered by this Court, while passing the judgment

under review.

4.

The learned Advoficate relied upon the

observations in Rasiklal Manikfichand Dhariwal and

Another .vs. M. S. S. Food Produficts, 2012(2) SCC 196

(Para 61), in support of his submissions. He submitted

that the review applification needs to be allowed and

the fnding reficorded by this Court in Para 20 of the

judgment under review needs to be modifed.

5.

On the other hand, the learned Advoficate for the

respondent submitted that in Para 20 of the

22 MCA-577-2017

3

judgment, a speficiffic fnding is reficorded by this Court,

and therefore, the review applification is misficonficeived.

6.

In Para 20 of the judgment under review, this

Court has observed that :

“20.

The trial Court has rightly

proficeeded to order mesne profts in

aficficordanfice with provisions of Order XX Rule

12 of the Civil Proficedure Code.”

7.

It is therefore ficlear that ficonsidering the

ficontentions of the Applificant in respefict of inquiry into

future mesne proft under Order XX Rule 12(1)(fic), the

above fnding is reficorded by this Court. No ficase for

review, is therefore, made out by the Applificant. The

applification, is therefore, dismissed.

(N. B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

TAMBE