HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. versus AJAY BHATIA

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 527 · Decided: 22-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
527
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
v.
AJAY BHATIA
(Civil Appeal No. 6859 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 22, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Decree – Execution of – Held: A decree should not to the
extent practicable be allowed to be defeated – At the same time, a
decree can only be executed in respect of the suit property if the
suit property is easily identifiable – The extent of the suit property
would have to be determined by the Executing Court, as a question
relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree – In
the present case, the suit was in respect of Plot No. 4/4 – Respondent
cannot take possession of any part of Plot No. 4/5 or any other plot
in execution of the decree in the suit which is only in respect of Plot
No. 4/4 – Thus, decree is not executable against Plot No. 4/5 –
Respondent is liable to restore the possession of Plot No.4/5 to the
Appellant – Executing Court would have to appoint a Local
Commissioner to demarcate and hand over Plot No.4/4 to the
Respondent – Impugned judgment set aside – Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 – Or.7, r.3.
Cause of action – What is – Discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 From the averments in the plaint, it is patently
clear that there were two plots of land, Plot No. 4/4 being the suit
property which was inherited by the Respondent from his
grandmother ‘RB’ and Plot No. 4/5, an adjacent Plot, which fell in
the share of other legal representatives of ‘RB’. It is alleged
that the said adjacent plot of land is also in the unauthorised
occupation of the Appellant. The existence of a cause of action
and/or, in other words, the existence of circumstances giving
cause for initiation of action is imperative for initiation of a suit. A
suit can only be entertained when the cause of action has arisen
and not otherwise. Any future event does not constitute cause of
action. The cause of action is the fact or bundle of facts which
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 527
527
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
would be necessary for the plaintiff to plead and prove, in order
to get a judgment of the Court in his favour. The cause of action
is the expiry of the lease of the suit property, that is Plot No.4/4
and refusal of the Appellant to vacate the suit property in spite of
request, and the consequential liability of the Appellant to the
Respondent, to pay damages for wrongful occupation and/or
mesne profits for wrongful occupation. From the tenor and style
of the plaint, it is absolutely clear that the suit was filed only in
respect of Plot No.4/4, initially let out to CALTEX, which had
merged into Appellant and where a retail outlet was being
operated under the name and style of M/s Azadpur Service Station.
The suit property did not include Plot No. 4/5 which belongs to
other legal representatives of ‘RB’. The owners of Plot No. 4/5
had not even joined as Plaintiffs in the suit. The plaint proceeds
on the basis of a lease executed in favour of CALTEX
predecessor in interest of the Appellant, which according to the
plaintiff, had expired in June 2003. [Paras 14, 15, 17 & 18][534-
C-F; 535-H; 536-A-C]
1.2 There is a plethora of documents on record to show
that two separate petrol pumps/retail outlets were being run on
two contiguous plots, one of which was initially run by CALTEX,
which later merged into the Appellant and the other by ESSO,
which later merged into the Appellant. There was no connection
between CALTEX and ESSO. It is also admitted that one of the
plots have gone to the share of some other descendants of the
original owner. It is clear that the decree is not executable against
Plot No. 4/5. The Respondent is liable to restore the possession
of Plot No.4/5 to the Appellant. The Executing Court would have
to appoint a Local Commissioner to demarcate and hand over
Plot No.4/4 to the Respondent. The suit was in respect of Plot
No. 4/4. The mesne profits and/or damages were awarded in
respect of wrongful occupation of Plot No. 4/4. There can be no
doubt that the verdict of the Trial Court has assumed finality in
respect of Plot No. 4/4. The Respondent is entitled to possession
of Plot No. 4/4. The Respondent is also entitled to mesne profits
at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month from 1st March 2006, as
directed by the High Court to make over, till the date on which
the Appellant offered possession of Plot No. 4/4 to the
Respondent. [Paras 44-47][542-C-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
529
1.3 The question is whether the Respondent 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.