Order XX Rule 12 r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to determine the mesne profits/damages - allowed by trial court - upheld as correct = “In the result, the suit is decreed in part in favour of the plaintiff with proportionate costs holding that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for eviction of the defendants and recovery of vacant peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants, and accordingly the defendants are directed to vacate the plaint schedule property and put the plaintiff in vacant and peaceful possession of the same within four months from the date of this judgment; and it is further decreed that on an application that may be made by the plaintiff under Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure an enquiry be made in accordance with the procedure established by law as to the amount of the damages/mesne profits payable by the defendants to the plaintiff from the date of the suit (03.12.2009) till the date of delivery of vacant peaceful possession of the schedule property by the defendants to the plaintiff. The rest of the suit claim of the plaintiff is dismissed without costs. The counter claim of the defendants is also dismissed without costs.” = as mesne profits was not fixed and in the absence of suspension of the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2013 in O.S.No.695 of 2009 by this Court, it is always open for the trial Court to proceed with the enquiry with regard to mesne profits.


CRP 56 / 2016
CRPSR 34051 / 2015CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
U.P. HANDI CRAFTS DEVELOPMENT & 3 OTHERS  VSM.SHUJAUDDIN KHAN
PET.ADV. : NARASIMHA RAORESP.ADV. : KHAJA MOIZUDDIN



HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.56 of 2016
ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners/defendants aggrieved by the docket order dated 30.09.2015 in I.A.No.5372 of 2013 in O.S.No.695 of 2009 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order XX Rule 12 r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to determine the mesne profits/damages from the date of suit i.e., 03.12.2009 till the date of delivery of vacant peaceful possession of the petition schedule property. 
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.695 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for eviction of the petitioners/defendants and for mesne profits. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 23.09.2013, the operative portion of which reads as under: “In the result, the suit is decreed in part in favour of the plaintiff with proportionate costs holding that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for eviction of the defendants and recovery of vacant peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants, and accordingly the defendants are directed to vacate the plaint schedule property and put the plaintiff in vacant and peaceful possession of the same within four months from the date of this judgment; and it is further decreed that on an application that may be made by the plaintiff under Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure an enquiry be made in accordance with the procedure established by law as to the amount of the damages/mesne profits payable by the defendants to the plaintiff from the date of the suit (03.12.2009) till the date of delivery of vacant peaceful possession of the schedule property by the defendants to the plaintiff. The rest of the suit claim of the plaintiff is dismissed without costs. The counter claim of the defendants is also dismissed without costs.” 
3. To ascertain the mesne profits for the period from the date of the suit i.e., 03.12.2009 till the date of delivery of vacant peaceful possession of the suit schedule property i.e., 31.12.2013, the respondent/plaintiff, who is the decree holder, has filed the aforesaid application being I.A.No.5372 of 2013 in O.S.No.695 of 2009 under Order XX Rule 12 r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and the same has been allowed through the impugned order dated 30.09.2015.
4. In this revision, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners/defendants that as against the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2013 in O.S.No.695 of 2009, the petitioners/defendant have carried the matter by way of appeal in C.C.C.A.No.3 of 2014 and vide interim order dated 21.01.2014 in C.C.C.A.M.P.No.10 of 2014 in C.C.C.A.No.3 of 2014, this Court granted stay of eviction subject to the condition of payment of arrears of rent upto 31.12.2013 and further directed the petitioners/defendants to deposit a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards damages for use and occupation of the subject premises from January, 2014 onwards. It is submitted that in view of such orders passed by this Court, it is open for the trial Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner in order to ascertain the mesne profits.
5. It is to be noticed that the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2013 in O.S.No.695 of 2009 is not suspended and further the impugned order dated 30.09.2015 is to conduct an enquiry with regard to mesne profits from the date of the suit i.e., 03.12.2009 till 31.12.2013 only. Further, as mesne profits was not fixed and in the absence of suspension of the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2013 in O.S.No.695 of 2009 by this Court, it is always open for the trial Court to proceed with the enquiry with regard to mesne profits. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order runs contrary to the interim order dated 21.01.2014 passed by this Court in C.C.C.A.M.P.No.10 of 2014 in C.C.C.A.No.3 of 2014. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this civil revision petition warranting interference by this Court.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, at the admission stage. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY 07.01.2016. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.56 of 2016 07.01.2016 Msr

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.