Summary
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the refusal to reject, as time-barred, the decree-holders' application for an inquiry into mesne profits directed by a 1973 decree, holding that such an inquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC is a continuation of the suit in the nature of final-decree proceedings and not a fresh or second execution proceeding.
Issues
- Whether an application filed in 2014 for determination of mesne profits, pursuant to a 1973 decree directing an inquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC, was barred by limitation and liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
- Whether such an application is in the nature of a second execution or a continuation of the suit for preparation of the final decree.
Provisions considered
- Order XX Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Reading the rule, which allows a decree directing an inquiry into mesne profits from institution of the suit until delivery of possession and requires a final decree on the result of that inquiry, the Court held that the inquiry ordered by the 1973 decree was a continuation of the suit akin to preparation of a final decree, so an application reminding the court to complete it was not time-barred.
- Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The judgment-debtors' application to reject the mesne profits application as barred by limitation had been rejected by the trial court and the High Court in revision; the Supreme Court found no fault with those decisions.
Held
- Applying the reasoning in Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan on preliminary and final decrees in partition suits, the Court held that where a decree directs an inquiry into mesne profits, that inquiry is a continuation of the suit and in the nature of preparation of the final decree; an application asking the court to complete it is not barred by limitation or liable to dismissal for delay or laches.
- Relying on North Eastern Chemicals Industries v. Ashok Paper Mill, the Court observed that where no limitation is prescribed, a court should not supply one; no absolute limitation can be laid down and whether proceedings were initiated within a reasonable time depends on the facts of each case.
- Since both courts below had held that the proceedings were not barred and were a continuation of the old suit rather than fresh proceedings, the Court declined to interfere.
Result
Special leave petition dismissed; petitioners at liberty to participate in the mesne profits inquiry before the trial court; pending applications disposed of.