A) Abstract / Headnote

This case revolves around the application of Order XX Rule 12 and Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), concerning mesne profits and procedural inquiries in civil suits. The Supreme Court deliberated on whether an application filed in 2014 to determine mesne profits pursuant to a 1973 judgment was barred by limitation. The Court held that the application was not time-barred as such inquiries are a continuation of the suit and constitute the preparation of the final decree. The judgment underscores the principle that no statutory limitation applies to proceedings for mesne profits when ordered under Order XX Rule 12, thereby dismissing the notion of laches or unreasonable delay in such cases.

Keywords: Mesne profits, Order XX Rule 12 CPC, Limitation, Final decree, Continuation of suit.

B) Case Details

i) Judgement Cause Title: Choudappa & Anr. v. Choudappa since Deceased by Lrs. & Ors.

ii) Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3056 of 2023

iii) Judgement Date: 3 September 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan

vi) Author: Not specifically indicated in the judgment extract

vii) Citation: [2024] 9 S.C.R. 229; 2024 INSC 691

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Order XX Rule 12 CPC: Inquiry into mesne profits
• Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC: Rejection of plaint/application barred by limitation
• Section 141 CPC: Procedural applications in civil suits
• Limitation Act, 1963: Interpretation of absence of specific statutory limitation.

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None explicitly mentioned.

x) Related Law Subjects: Civil Law, Procedural Law, Property Law.

C) Introduction and Background of Judgement

The legal dispute initiated in 1963 pertained to the recovery of possession of land and correction of mutation entries. The Trial Court decreed the suit in 1973, directing an inquiry into mesne profits from the suit’s initiation on 24 September 1963. The decree attained finality in 1980. Possession was eventually delivered in 2005. However, the inquiry for mesne profits remained incomplete. The respondents filed an application for this purpose in 2014, leading the petitioners to challenge it as being barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. Both the Trial Court and the High Court dismissed their objections, affirming the procedural validity of the inquiry.

D) Facts of the Case

1. Initial Suit and Decree: The respondents filed a suit in 1963 for recovery of possession and mutation correction. The suit was decreed in 1973, with directions for a mesne profits inquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC.

2. Execution and Possession: After a prolonged process, the respondents obtained possession of the disputed land in 2005.

3. 2014 Application: Respondents filed an application to initiate the pending mesne profits inquiry as ordered by the 1973 judgment.

4. Objections by Petitioners: The petitioners challenged the 2014 application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, claiming it was barred by limitation.

5. Lower Court and High Court Rulings: Both courts dismissed the petitioners’ application, holding the mesne profits inquiry as part of the decree and not a fresh proceeding.

6. Supreme Court Proceedings: The matter was escalated to the Supreme Court, which evaluated the procedural nature of the application and its legal permissibility.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Whether the 2014 application for determining mesne profits was barred by limitation?

2. Whether the inquiry for mesne profits constitutes a continuation of the original suit?

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

The counsels for the petitioners submitted:

1. The application filed in 2014 for mesne profits inquiry was akin to a second execution or fresh suit, making it barred by limitation.

2. Prolonged inaction between 1973 and 2014 constituted laches, warranting dismissal of the application.

3. They relied on M/s. North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s. Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. & Anr. to argue for the necessity of proceeding within a reasonable time.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

The counsels for the respondents contended:

1. The 2014 application was not a fresh suit but a reminder for completing the inquiry ordered in the 1973 decree.

2. Order XX Rule 12 CPC imposes a duty on the Court to conduct an inquiry into mesne profits, which is not time-barred.

3. Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan (2022) upheld that inquiries for final decrees are not subject to limitation.

H) Related Legal Provisions

1. Order XX Rule 12 CPC: Governs inquiries into mesne profits as part of the decree process.

2. Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC: Allows rejection of applications or suits barred by limitation.

3. Section 141 CPC: Extends procedural provisions to applications within civil suits.

4. Limitation Act, 1963: Provides the framework for determining time limits in civil matters.

I) Judgement

a) Ratio Decidendi

1. The inquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC forms part of the final decree preparation and is not a fresh proceeding.

2. No limitation applies to such inquiries unless explicitly prescribed by law.

3. Delay in initiating such inquiries is contextual and must be assessed holistically.

b) Obiter Dicta

1. Courts should not substitute legislative intent by prescribing time limits where none exist.

2. Inquiries related to final decrees are procedural obligations, not fresh rights.

c) Guidelines

1. Courts must undertake mesne profits inquiries without necessitating repeated applications from parties.

2. The absence of limitation does not preclude inquiry but mandates reasonable diligence.

J) Conclusion & Comments

This judgment underscores procedural continuity in civil litigation, emphasizing the Court’s obligation to fulfill directions in a decree. It sets a precedent for similar mesne profits inquiries and final decree proceedings, reaffirming the procedural safeguards inherent in civil adjudication.

K) References

1. Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan (2022), AIR Online 2022 SC 2841
2. M/s. North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. (2023), SCR 2023
3. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XX Rule 12