Jatinder Pal Singh and Others v. Ram Niwas Aggarwal
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 304 CR-5073-2015 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.05.2025 Jatinder Pal Singh and Others ....Petitioners VERSUS Ram Niwas Aggarwal ....Respondent CORAM : HON’ BL E M RS. JUSTI CE AL K A SARI N Present : Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Khatri, Advocate for the respondent. ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) 1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chandigarh whereby the relief of mesne profits as claimed in the execution petition has been dismissed. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- petitioners herein filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of the defendant-respondent from the ground floor of SCO No.168, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh. During the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a compromise (Annexure R-4) whereby the defendant-respondent was to remain in possession of the ground floor for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 01.12.1998 to 20.11.2008 and yearly rent for the said period was also fixed.
Decision
The said suit was disposed off vide order dated 23.01.1999 (Annexure R-2). Para 6 of the order reads as under : JITENDER KUMAR 2025.05.29 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR-5073-2015 -2- “ 6. In view of the statements of the parties recorded separately and in view of the rent agreement Ex.C1 and in view of the compromise deed Ex.C2, the parties are xxxx directed to execute the lease deed and get it registered for a period of 10 years as is mentioned in the compromise deed Ex.C2. However, the suit with regard to mesne profits has been waived of by the plaintiffs and as such, the suit of the plaintiffs for possession of ground floor of SCO 158, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh and for recovery has been disposed of in terms of compromise deed Ex.C2. Compromise deed Ex.C2 be made part of the decree sheet. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Parties are also directed to remain bound their statements recorded separately. Decree sheet be prepared and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.” 3. Since the defendant-respondent did not hand over the vacant possession, the execution petition was filed by the plaintiff-petitioners herein. Admittedly, in the execution the possession was handed over to the plaintiff-petitioners on 15.09.2014. After the possession had been taken by the plaintiff-petitioners through the agency of the Court, the decree-holders (petitioners herein) moved an application for directing the judgment-debtor (respondent herein) to pay an amount of ₹1,60,54,557/- as mesne profits including interest upto 31.12.2014. The said application was contested by the judgment-debtor (respondent herein). Vide the impugned order the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that since JITENDER KUMAR 2025.05.29 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR-5073-2015 -3- period of 10 years was over and the respondent did not hand over possession of the property, hence the defendant-respondent would be liable to pay the mesne profits, and the Executing Court was well within its right to determine the mesne profits and to award the same to the plaintiff-petitioners. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Patel Naranbhai Marghabhai & Ors. vs. Deceased Dhulabhai Galbabhai & Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 2009] to contend that even in the absence of any mesne profits having been awarded, the Executing Court would be well within its right to award the mesne profits. He has further relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. vs. M/s Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. [AIR 1999 SC 882], R.S. Maddanappa (deceased) after him by his legal representatives vs. Chandramma & Anr. [AIR 1965 SC 1812] and that of the High Courts in the cases of Lakshmi Ammal & Ors. vs. Subbaraj & Ors. [AIR 1975 Madras 208], Kartar Singh & Ors. vs. Gurdial Singh & Ors. [2013(40) RCR (Civil) 463], Pramod Kedarnath Gandhi etc. vs. Dilip Shankarrao Junghare & Anr. [2005 (4) ICC 97], Prakash Chand & Anr. vs. Durga Singh & Anr. [2016 AIR CC 3100], Dev Raj & Ors. vs. Satpal Gulia [2020 AIR CC 2027] and Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. vs. Anil Syal [2015 (31) RCR (Civil) 509]. 5. Per contra learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has pointed out that at the time of compromise, a specific statement was made by the plaintiff-petitioners herein that prayer for mesne profits had been waived off by the plaintiff-petitioners and thereafter the suit was disposed JITENDER KUMAR 2025.05.29 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR-5073-2015 -4- off in terms of the compromise. It is further the contention that even in the compromise there was no clause which dealt with any default in handing over possession of the suit property at the end of 10 years period. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Amin & Ors. vs. Vakil Ahmed & Ors. [AIR 1952 SC 358]. 6. 7. Heard. In the present case, though initially the suit was filed for possession as well as for mesne profits, however, a compromise was entered into between the parties, and the suit was disposed off in terms of the compromise. The plaintiff-petitioners herein made a specific statement at the time of disposal of the suit that they waive off their right to the mesne profits. Thereafter, the judgment disposing off the suit on the basis of the compromise was passed on 23.01.1999. Even the compromise itself does not speak of any mesne profits to be paid in case of any default on the part of the tenant. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Patel Naranbhai Marghabhai (supra) would not come to his aid as the same was passed under the provisions of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947, which is a code unto itself. The judgment in the case of M/s Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. (supra) pertains to a case where a decree could not be executed due to undue procedural complications, which were raised by the respondents therein and hence they were directed to pay mesne profits. The judgments in the cases of R.S. Maddanappa JITENDER KUMAR 2025.05.29 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR-5073-2015 -5- (supra), Lakshmi Ammal (supra), Kartar Singh (supra), Pramod Kedarnath Gandhi (supra), Prakash Chand (supra), Dev Raj (supra) and Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. vs. Anil Syal (supra) would also be of no avail to learned counsel for the petitioners inasmuch as in the present case the distinguishable factor would be that the petitioners themselves had waived off their right to claim mesne profits and having made a specific statement in this regard, the question of granting mesne profits by the Executing Court would not arise. Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with a decree for possession and mesne profits. In order to pass a decree for mesne profits, a proper procedure has been laid down in Order XX Rule 12 CPC. It is trite that in the absence of any enquiry in terms of Order XX Rule 12 CPC, grant of mesne profits is not permissible and reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganapati Madhav Sawant (dead) through his LRs vs. Dattur Madhav Sawant [2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 175]. As observed above, in this case, the petitioner himself had waived off his right for mesne profits. That being so, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Executing Court. 8. In view of the above, the present revision petition, being devoid of any merits, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. 28.05.2025 jk ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO JITENDER KUMAR 2025.05.29 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh