Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit concerning the award of mesne profits. The appellant, Ganapati Madhav Sawant (deceased), through his legal representatives, challenged the dismissal of their second appeal by the Bombay High Court, which had confirmed the decree of the Additional District Judge. The appellants contended that the High Court erred in awarding mesne profits without a specific inquiry as mandated by Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The High Court had initially noted the absence of a prayer for such inquiry but failed to consider this point when dismissing the appeal. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, found that the High Court overlooked a substantial question of law regarding the mesne profits. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent of remitting the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration of the mesne profits issue, without imposing any costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Mesne Profits - Inquiry Requirement - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XX Rule 12 - The High Court awarded mesne profits despite the plaintiff not praying for an inquiry into the same in the plaint, which was impermissible. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to recognize this substantial question of law during the second appeal and remitted the matter for reconsideration (Paras 2-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in awarding mesne profits without a specific prayer for inquiry in the plaint.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent of remitting the matter to the High Court for reconsideration of the mesne profits issue, with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second Appeal
- Mesne Profits
- Inquiry under Order XX Rule 12
- CPC
- Substantial Question of Law
