SC Holds That Limitation Does Not Apply To Proceedings Under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC, Allows Decree-Holder To Seek Determination Of Mesne Profits After 26 Years

The Supreme Court has allowed a decree-holder to file an application for the determination of mesne profits nearly 26 years after the decree was passed, holding that such an application is not barred by limitation and is a continuation of the original suit.

The Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan clarified that an application seeking the determination of mesne profits, even if filed decades later, is merely a reminder for the court to complete an inquiry and does not constitute a new suit or execution.

The Court emphasized that such an inquiry is a continuation of the suit and falls under the purview of the final decree.

“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,” the Court stated.

The case involved a decree passed in 1973 by a trial court for the recovery of possession and correction of mutation entries, with a directive to hold an inquiry into the future mesne profits of the disputed land. However, it was not until 2014, over 40 years later, that the decree-holder filed an application under Section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Order XX Rule 12 CPC, seeking the court’s intervention to determine the mesne profits.

The appellant argued that the application for mesne profits, filed decades after the decree had attained finality, amounted to a second execution or a fresh suit and should be dismissed on grounds of limitation. The appellant contended that proceedings of this nature should have been initiated within a reasonable time.

On the contrary, the respondent countered that the application was neither a second execution nor a fresh suit. Instead, it was simply a reminder for the court to complete the inquiry into the mesne profits as directed by the 1973 judgment. The respondent also contended that such proceedings are a continuation of the original suit and not barred by any limitation period.

Rejecting the appellant's contention, the Court ruled that the filing of a reminder application for the determination of mesne profits cannot be treated as a fresh suit or second execution and thus cannot be barred by limitation. The Court also explained that the original decree passed in 1973 had directed an inquiry into mesne profits but had not reached the stage of a final decree. Therefore, the subsequent application to continue the inquiry was part of the same proceeding.

The Court further cited its earlier decision in Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan & Anr. Vs. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Ors. (2022), where it had ruled that the proceedings for a final decree can be initiated at any time after a preliminary decree without any limitation period. The Court applied the same reasoning in this case, stating that an application for the determination of mesne profits could not be subject to any time constraints.

“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,” the Bench observed.

Furthermore, the Court dismissed the appellant's argument that proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time if no specific limitation period is prescribed. The Court also noted that both lower courts had held that the proceedings were not barred by limitation and were a continuation of the original suit rather than new proceedings.

"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 Court held. 

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the Court allowing the petitioners to participate in the inquiry regarding the determination of mesne profits before the trial court. "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," the Court ordered. 

Cause Title: Choudappa & Anr. v. Choudappa since deceased by Lrs & Ors. 

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocate C. Nageswara Rao, Advocates Vikram Hegde (AOR), Chitwan Sharma

Respondent: Senior Advocate Ameet Deshpande, Advocates Akshat Shrivastava (AOR), Satvic Mathur

Click here to read/download the Order