Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said 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 trial court must undertake a holistic assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case to examine the possibility of delay. 

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and R Mahadevan said that when no limitation stands prescribed, it would be inappropriate for a court to supplement the legislature’s wisdom on its own and provide a limitation.

Court held that no limitation could be prescribed in determining mesne profits in a suit decreed in 70's and such a plea could not be construed as a fresh suit.

Before the court was a challenge to the revisional order of July 22, 2022 passed by the high court dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners Choudappa and another arising from the rejection of their application alleged to have been filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

A suit for recovery of possession and for correction of mutation entries was filed by the respondents in the year, 1963 and it was decreed on July 12, 1973. 

The said judgment, order and decree specifically directed for holding an inquiry regarding mesne profits from the date of the suit i.e., September 24, 1963 in accordance with Order XX Rule 12, CPC.

This judgment, order and decree of the court of first instance attained finality with the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioners in the year 1980.

The respondents applied for the execution so as to obtain possession of the suit land sometime in the year, 1993 and after going through the entire exercise of execution, issuance of warrant for possession, the respondents were put into possession of the suit land property in the year, 2005.

However, sometime in 2014, an application purported to be under Section 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 of July 12, 1973. 

Once such an application was filed, the petitioners moved the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, contending that such an application was hopelessly barred by limitation and as such, it should be rejected outright. 

This application was rejected by the trial court and the revision thereof also met the same fate at the hands of the high court.

In the apex court, the petitioners argued that the application allegedly moved by the respondents for an inquiry for mesne profits was in the nature of a second execution and since, it had been filed decades after the decree had attained finality, it was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

The respondents on the other hand contended that the application was not in a nature of a second execution or in the form of a fresh suit or a plaint, rather it was only a reminder to the court to complete the process of inquiry with regard to determination of mesne profits as had been directed by the court of first instance by judgment and order of July 12, 1973. 

They asserted that the said proceedings were actually proceedings under Order XX Rule 12 CPC wherein the court was obliged to hold an inquiry with regard to determination of the mesne profits from the date of institution of the suit and till the delivery of the possession.

"Admittedly, the said inquiry has not been conducted and completed and that the law nowhere provides for any specific time limit for initiation of such proceedings rather the court is obliged to undertake this exercise on its own," the bench said.

Referring to Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and Anr Vs Kattukandi Edathil Valsan and Ors (2022), the bench said, "This court opined that fundamentally there is a distinction between a preliminary and a final decree and that proceedings for final decree can be initiated at any point of time as there is no limitation for initiation of such proceedings. Either of the parties to the suit can move an application for preparation of the final decree or the court may take action in this regard suo moto. In fact, after the passing of the preliminary decree, the trial court is obliged to proceed for the preparation of the final decree and should not adjourn the matter sine die. There is no need to file any separate application for the preparation of the final decree".

"This 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. This is evident from the plain reading of Order XX Rule 12 CPC," the bench added.

The court held that it was in the light of the provision that the court of first instance while passing the judgment and order in 1973 had specifically stated for conducting an inquiry be held regarding future mesne profits of the said suit lands from the date of the suit.

"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 bench said.

Relying upon M/s North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd & Anr Vs M/s Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd & Anr (2023), the petitioners contended where no limitation is provided, steps ought to be taken for initiation of proceedings within a reasonable time and not decades later.

The bench, however, said, "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."

The court pointed out that the two courts below had held that the proceedings were not barred by limitation and that actually the proceedings were 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 bench said, dismissing the present petition.

Court granted liberty to the petitioners to participate in the inquiry before the trial court in so far as the determination of mesne profits are concerned.

Case Title: Choudappa & Anr Vs Choudappa Since Deceased Thr LRs & Ors