Heard learned senior counsel for the
parties.
The challenge in the present special leave
petition is to the revisional order dated 22nd July,
2022 passed by the High Court dismissing the revision
of the petitioners arising from the rejection of
their application alleged to have been filed under
Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908(for short, ‘C.P.C.’).
A suit for recovery of possession and for
correction of mutation entries was filed by the
respondents in the year, 1963 and it was decreed on
mesne profits from the date of the suit i.e.,
24.09.1963 in accordance with Order XX Rule 12,
C.P.C. The aforesaid judgment, order and decree of
the Court of first instance attained finality with
the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioners
in the year, 1980.
The respondents applied for the execution so
as to obtain possession of the suit land sometime in
the year, 1993 and after going through the entire
exercise of execution, issuance of warrant for
possession, the respondents were put into possession
of the suit land property in the year, 2005.
It appears that sometime in 2014, an
application purported to be under Section 141 C.P.C.
or under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. was filed by the
respondents for the determination of the mesne
profits as directed by the judgment, order and decree
dated 12.07.1973. Once such an application was filed,
the petitioners moved application under Order VII
Rule 11(d) C.P.C. contending that such an application
is hopelessly barred by limitation and as such, it
should be rejected outright.
The aforesaid application filed under Order
VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. was rejected by the Trial Court
and the revision thereof also met the same fate at
the hands of the High Court. Thus, the Special Leave
Petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued
that the application allegedly moved by the
respondents for an inquiry for mesne profits is in
the nature of a second execution and since, it has
been filed decades after the decree has attained
finality, it is liable to be dismissed on the ground
of limitation.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the
other hand contends that the aforesaid application is
not in a nature of a second execution or in the form
of a fresh suit or a plaint, rather it is only a
reminder to the Court to complete the process of
inquiry with regard to determination of mesne profits
as has been directed by the Court of first instance
vide judgment and order dated 12.07.1973. The said
proceedings are actually proceedings under Order XX
Rule 12 C.P.C. wherein the Court is obliged to hold
an inquiry with regard to determination of the mesne
profits from the date of institution of the suit and
till the delivery of the possession.
Admittedly, the said inquiry has not been
conducted and completed and that the law nowhere
provides for any specific time limit for initiation
of such proceedings rather the Court is obliged to
undertake this exercise on its own.
In Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and Anr. Vs.
Kattukandi Edathil Valsan and Ors.1, the Court while
dealing with the matter regarding a preliminary
decree and the final decree in connection with the
decree passed in a suit for partition opined that
fundamentally there is a distinction between a
preliminary and a final decree and that proceedings
for final decree can be initiated at any point of
time as there is no limitation for initiation of such
proceedings. Either of the parties to the suit can
move an application for preparation of the final
decree or the Court may take action in this regard
suo moto. In fact, after the passing of the
preliminary decree, the Trial Court is obliged to
proceed for the preparation of the final decree and
should not adjourn the matter sine die. There is no
need to file any separate application for the
preparation of the final decree.
The aforesaid analogy with regard to the
preparation of the final decree pursuant to the
preliminary decree for partition can very well be
applied to the cases where a decree is passed with a
direction to hold an inquiry with regard to
determination of mesne profits. This is evident from
the plain reading of Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. For the
1 2022 (16) SCC 71: AIR Online 2022 SC 2841
sake of convenience, Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. is
reproduced herein below:-
“12. Decree for possession and mesne
profits.—
(1) Where a suit is for the recovery of
possession of immovable property and for
rent or mesne profits, the Court may pass a
decree—
(a) for the possession of the property;
(b) for the rents which have accrued on the
property during the period prior to the
institution of the suit or directing an
inquiry as to such rent;
(ba) for the mesne profits or directing an
inquiry as to such mesne profits;
(c) directing an inquiry as to rent or
mesne profits from the institution of the
suit until—
(i) the delivery of possession to the
decree-holder,
(ii) the relinquishment of possession by
the judgment-debtor with notice to the
decree-holder through the Court, or
(iii) the expiration of three years from
the date of the decree, whichever, event
first occurs.
(2) Where an inquiry is directed under
clause (b) or clause (c), a final decree in
respect of the rent or mesne profits shall
be passed in accordance with the result of
such inquiry.”
It is in the light of the aforesaid
provision that the Court of first instance while
passing the judgment and order dated 12.07.1973 had
specifically stated as under: -
“An inquiry be held regarding future mesne
profits of the said suit lands from the
date of the suit, that is 24-9-1963 under
Order 20 Rule 12(a) C.P.C.”
Now, such an inquiry is nothing but a
continuation of the suit and is in the nature of
preparation of the final decree and as such, it
cannot be said that any application moved as a
reminder for completing the inquiry is barred by
limitation or is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of delay or laches.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has
placed reliance upon a recent decision of this
Court in M/s. North Eastern Chemicals Industries
(P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Ashok Paper Mill (Assam)
Ltd. & Anr. passed in Civil Appeal No. 2669 of 2013
on 11th December, 2023 to contend that where no
limitation is provided, steps ought to be taken for
initiation of proceedings within a reasonable time
and not decades later.
In the aforesaid relied upon decision, the
Court has clearly stated that in a situation where
no limitation stands provided either by specific
applicability of the Limitation Act or by the
special statute governing the dispute, the Trial
Court must undertake a holistic assessment of the
facts and circumstances of the case to examine the
possibility of delay. When no limitation stands
prescribed, it would be inappropriate for a Court
to supplement the legislature’s wisdom by its own
and provide a limitation.
In view of the aforesaid decision also, no
limitation as an absolute rule could be provided in
such matters and it depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case whether the proceedings
have been initiated in a fairly reasonable time.
The two Courts below having held that the
proceedings are not barred by limitation and that
actually the proceedings are not in the nature of a
fresh proceedings, rather than a continuation of
the old suit in the form of a preparation of the
final decree, we cannot find fault with the said
decisions. We are not inclined to grant any
indulgence in the matter. The present petition is,
accordingly, dismissed.
The petitioners are set at liberty to
participate in the inquiry before the Trial Court
in so far as the determination of mesne profits are
concerned.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 3056/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-07-2022 in CRP No. 200017/2022 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Kalaburagi)
CHOUDAPPA & ANR. Petitioner(s)
CHOUDAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 03-09-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Petitioner(s) Mr. C. Nageswara Rao, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vikram Hegde, AOR
Mr. Chitwan Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ameet Deshpande, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR
Mr. Satvic Mathur, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The present special leave petition is
dismissed in terms of the signed reportable order
which is placed on the file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(SNEHA DAS) (RAM SUBHAG SINGH) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)