Key Points: - The Court held that damages/mesne profits cannot be granted indirectly when not claimed in the suit and the plaintiff had full knowledge of rights (!) . - The High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 96 CPC (appellate) is different from its equity/judicial review power under Articles 226/227; equity cannot override statutory provisions (!) (!) (!) . - The High Court should have framed points for consideration under Order XLI, Rule 31 and could not grant relief outside the issues/pleadings; a second suit under Order II, Rule 4 may be possible but requires proper basis and court fees (!) (!) (!) . - If damages were not prayed for, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to claim them indirectly; the Court cannot grant such relief contrary to pleadings (!) (!) . - The appellate court limited its grant of costs and did not sustain the impugned directions regarding damages/mesne profits; the matter of damages was not disposed of on merits (!) . - The decision emphasizes that equity yields to law; discretionary relief must comply with statutory provisions (!) (!) (!) .

How to determine whether a High Court can grant damages or mesne profits when such relief was not sought in the plaint?

What is the scope and distinction between the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 96 CPC and its power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution?

What is the effect of not claiming damages or mesne profits in a suit on the ability to obtain such relief indirectly or in a subsequent proceeding?