LexCHOUDAPPA & ANR. versus CHOUDAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.