Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Kumar Pandey vs Smt. Sushila Bai Sheela Devi on 3 April, 2017
1 W.P.No.1731/2017
(Rajesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Smt. Sushila Bai)
3.4.2017.
Shri R.K.Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 2.3.2017 passed by
the trial Court whereby the trial Court has directed the defendant
to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month out of the total amount of
mesne profit ascertained and quantified at Rs.1,22,000/- on the
ground that this Court in civil revision No.128/16 vide order dated
30th January, 2017 had disposed of the revision petition with a
direction that the order of the Courts below dismissing the
application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is set aside with
following directions :-
"(i) the parties shall appear before the trial Court
on 8/2/2017.
(ii) Petitioner shall deposit the cost of Rs.5,000/-
(Rs. Five Thousand Only) with the respondent on
the said date.
(iii) Petitioner shall pay the total amount of mesne profits accrued as on date, on such term and conditions the trial Court deems fit and proper in the matter of installments for which the petitioner shall file an application on the same date.
(iv) As the suit is of the year 2012 and due to non-participation of the defendant, the proceedings have been lingered on, therefore, the petitioner shall not seek unwarranted adjournment and ensure fill cooperation in compliance of the suit proceedings of the suit, and
(v) Trial Court shall endeavour to decide the suit as early as possible within 9 (nine)months.
It is petitioner's contention that since this Court had directed the trial Court to make an endeavour to decide the suit as early as possible within 9 months, therefore, trial Court should have made an effort to realize the amount of mesne profits in such installments which could have been of such amount that 2 W.P.No.1731/2017 total amount of mesne profit would have been realized by the petitioner within this period of nine months as was indicated by this Court in civil revision.
This contention of the petitioner deserves to be rejected from the plain reading of clause 3 of the order wherein this Court was pleased to direct the trial Court that petitioner shall pay the total amount of mesne profits accrued as on date on such term and conditions the trial Court deems fit and proper in the matter of installments for which the petitioner shall file an application on the same date. Thus, this Court had vested complete discretion in the trial Court to fix the amount of installments and number of installments and that discretion cannot be interfered with and taken away merely on the asking of the petitioner because no such direction was issued by this Court in the civil revision that amount of mesne profit should be realized within nine months only. If this would have been the intention of this Court in the civil revision, then it would have been clarified accordingly. Thus, this petition is devoid of merits and accordingly it is dismissed.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge ms/-