The Supreme Court of India dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Choudappa & Anr. challenging a Karnataka High Court judgement, which upheld the continuation of an inquiry into mesne profits initiated decades after the original decree. The case revolved around whether the application for mesne profits filed in 2014, following a decree passed in 1973, was barred by limitation.

A two-judge bench, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan, dismissed the petitioners' contention that the mesne profits application amounted to a "second execution" and was therefore barred by limitation. The court emphasised that the application was not a fresh suit but a continuation of the original decree.

The case began with a suit for recovery of possession and correction of mutation entries filed by the respondents in 1963, which was decreed in their favour in 1973. The trial court had specifically directed an inquiry into mesne profits from the date of the suit, 24th September 1963, under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). However, the inquiry into mesne profits was never completed. The respondents filed an application in 2014, over 40 years later, seeking completion of the inquiry.

The petitioners, in response, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, arguing that the respondents' application was "hopelessly barred by limitation" and should be dismissed. Both the trial court and the Karnataka High Court rejected their application, prompting the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court sided with the respondents, stating that the application was a reminder for completing the mesne profits inquiry and not a fresh suit. The court noted that, under Order XX Rule 12 CPC, the inquiry into mesne profits is a continuation of the original suit, akin to the preparation of a final decree in a partition suit.

The bench referred to its earlier ruling in Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, observing that the distinction between a preliminary and final decree in partition suits applies to cases involving mesne profits enquiries as well. 

Justice Mithal explained, "Such an inquiry is nothing but a continuation of the suit and is in the nature of preparation of the final decree. 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."

The petitioners relied on M/s. North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd., a recent judgement where the court held that proceedings initiated decades after a decree must be taken within a reasonable time. However, the bench distinguished the present case, emphasising that no specific limitation period applies to mesne profits enquiries under Order XX Rule 12 CPC.

The court dismissed the petition, stating, "The two courts below having held that the proceedings are not barred by limitation and are a continuation of the old suit, we cannot find fault with the said decisions."

The petitioners were granted liberty to participate in the inquiry before the trial court for determining the mesne profits.

Case Details: Choudappa & Anr. v. Choudappa since Deceased by LRS. & Ors., SLP(Civil)/3056/2023

Advocate for Petitioner(s): Senior Advocate C. Nageswara Rao, AOR Vikram Hegde a/w Adv. Chitwan Sharma

Advocate for Respondent(s): Senior Advocate Ameet Deshpande, AOR Akshat Shrivastava, a/w Adv. Satvic Mathur.

(For more updates, tap to join our Whatsapp Channel and our LinkedIn Page)