Laxmi Pat Surana vs Pantaloon Retail India Ltd. & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 105 Cal/2

ORDER SHEET


                            AP/380/2017
               IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
              Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                          ORIGINAL SIDE

                        LAXMI PAT SURANA
                             Versus
               PANTALOON RETAIL INDIA LTD. & ORS.
                              ............

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 03-02-2021.

Appearance:

Mr.Sakya Sen, Adv.

Mr. S.K. Gupta, Adv.

Mr. A.Paul, Adv.

for petitioner

Mr.Ranjan Deb, Sr.Adv. Mr. Rishad Medora, Adv. Ms. Pooja Chakrabarti, Adv. Ms. Radhika Misra, Adv. Mr. Debjyoti Saha, Adv. for respondent nos.2 and 3

Mr. S.K.Kapur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr,. Adv.

Mr. Arindam Guha, Adv.

Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Shuvashish Sengupta, Adv.

Ms. Richa Goyal, Adv.

for respondent no.1 and 4

The Court :- Mr. Sen, learned advocate appears on behalf

of petitioner. He relies on following judgments:-

(i) Santosh Kumar Ghosh Vs. Sachindranath

Mukherjee reported in 62 CWN 759 in which

was expressed, inter alia, the following:-

"Taking into consideration the changes

introduced by the present Code of Civil

Procedure to the old law, there is nothing to

indicate that the changes have taken away the

force of the old decision hereinbefore

referred to. A claim for mesne profits is not

a claim under the same obligation compelling

a trespasser to restore possession. A claim

for mesne profits is also not based on the

same cause of action as the claim for

possession. A person may be in wrongful

possession but even then may not be obliged

to pay mesne profits, if he has not received

or might not have received with ordinary

diligence profits from the property in

wrongful possession. The liability to pay

mesne profits arises from the profits a

person has or might reasonably have made by

his wrongful possession. Thus the obligation

to pay mesne profits arises from a cause of

action completely different from the

obligation to restore possession of the

immovable property to the rightful owner."

(ii) A. Subramanian Vs. Muthukrishna Reddiar

reported in AIR 2005 Mad 43; and

(iii) Shyam Sel & Power Limited Vs. Bahubali

Promoters Private Limited reported in

2019(2) CHN (CAL) 368 wherein a Division

Bench of this Court said, inter alia, that -

"...With regard to the past mesne profits

the plaintiff had an existing cause of

action on the date of the institution of

the suit, with regard to the future mesne

profits, the plaintiff has no cause of

action on the date of the institution of

the suit and hence it is pre-mature...."

Paucity of time intervenes. List on 10th February, 2021

(ARINDAM SINHA, J.)

sb.