CHOUDAPPA & ANR.versusCHOUDAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS.

           [2024] 9 S.C.R. 229 : 2024 INSC 691

               Choudappa & Anr.
                       v.
     Choudappa since Deceased by Lrs. & Ors.
      (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3056 of 2023)
                       03 September 2024
        [Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]

                     Issue for Consideration
In 2014, an application purported to be u/s. 141 CPC or under Order
XX Rule 12 CPC was filed by the respondents for the determination
of the mesne profits as directed by the judgment, order and decree
dated 12.07.1973. Whether such an application is barred by limitation.

                            Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XX, r.12 and s.141 – A suit
for recovery of possession and for correction of mutation
entries was filed by respondents in the year 1963 and it
was decreed on 12.07.1973 – The said judgment, order and
decree specifically directs for holding an inquiry regarding
mesne profits from the date of the suit i.e., 24.09.1963 in
accordance with Order XX Rule 12, CPC – Respondents applied
for execution and were put into possession of the suit land
property in the year 2005 – Thereafter, in 2014 an application
was filed by respondents for the determination of the mesne
profits – Petitioners moved an application u/Or.VII, r.11(d) CPC
contending that such an application was hopelessly barred by
limitation – Application u/Or.VII, r.11 (d) CPC rejected by the trial
Court – Revision filed against the said order was dismissed
by the High Court – Propriety:
Held: The Court of first instance while passing the judgment
and order dated 12.07.1973 had specifically stated for holding
an inquiry regarding mesne profits from the date of the suit i.e.,
24.09.1963 in accordance with Order XX Rule 12, CPC – 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 – It is settled 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
230                                                             [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 – 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 – In the instant case, 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 – No fault can be
       found in the said decisions. [Paras 12, 13, 15, 16, 17]
                                Case Law Cited
       Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and Anr. v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan
       and Ors. [2022] 7 SCR 1120 : (2022) 16 SCC 71 : AIR Online
       2022 SC 2841; M/s. North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd.
       & Anr. v. M/s. Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. & Anr. [2023] 15
       SCR 821 [C.A.No. 2669 of 2013, dated 11.12.2023 passed by the
       Supreme Court] – referred to.
                                  List of Acts
       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
                               List of Keywords
       Order XX Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Mesne profits;
       Determination of mesne profits; Limitation; Inquiry regarding
       mesne profits; Continuation of old suit; Preparation of final decree;
       Reminder for completing inquiry.
                              Case Arising From
       EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
       Petition (Civil) No. 3056 of 2023
       From the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2022 of the High Court of
       Karnataka at Kalaburagi in CRP No. 200017 of 2022
                           Appearances for Parties
       C. Nageswara Rao, Sr. Adv., Vikram Hegde, Chitwan Sharma, Advs.
       for the Petitioners.
       Ameet Deshpande, Sr. Adv., Akshat Shrivastava, Satvic Mathur,
       Advs. for the Respondent.
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                            231

    Choudappa & Anr. v. Choudappa since Deceased by Lrs. & Ors.


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                    Order
     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 12.07.1973. The said judgment, order and decree specifically
     directs for holding an inquiry regarding 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
232                                                                 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 sake of convenience, Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. is reproduced
       herein below:-


1   [2022] 7 SCR 1120 : 2022 (16) SCC 71 : AIR Online 2022 SC 2841
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                               233

    Choudappa & Anr. v. Choudappa since Deceased by Lrs. & Ors.


           “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
234                                                           [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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.

       Result of the case: Petition dismissed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan