Delhi High Court
Shri Dinesh Aggarwal vs Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta & Anr. on 24 December, 2010
Author: Indermeet Kaur
A-3
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 24.12.2010
+ R.S.A.No.234/2010 & CM No.23251/2010
SHRI DINESH AGGARWAL ...........Appellant
Through: Mr.Manu Nayar & Mr. Karan
Chauhan, Advocates.
Versus
SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. ..........Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral)
CM No.23252/2010 (for exemption)
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM No.23253/2010 (for delay)
In view of the averments made in the application, the delay
of 17 days in refilling the appeal is condoned. Application is
disposed of.
RSA No.234/2010 Page 1 of 3
R.S.A.No.234/2010 & CM No.23251/2010 (for stay)
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated
29.7.2010 whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs had been
allowed; the judgment and decree of the trial court was modified
to the extent that apart from the award of mesne profits, the
plaintiffs were also held entitled to interest on the aforestated
amount which was calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of institution of the suit till its realization.
2. The present suit was a suit for possession, recovery of
damages and mesne profit filed by the plaintiffs Sanjeev Kumar
Gupta and Devender Kumar Jain against Dinesh Aggarwal. Suit
was decreed. Admittedly suit property had been delivered back to
the plaintiff on 10.9.2002. While dealing with issue no.4 and 5
admitted rental of `18000/- was awarded for period 16.8.2000 to
15.9.2000 i.e. when the suit property was in occupation of the
defendant. Thereafter w.e.f. 16.9.2000 up to 10.9.2002 mesne
profits @ Rs.25000/- per month had been awarded. In this appeal
filed by the defendant he has challenged the interest awarded to
the plaintiff.
3. The impugned judgment while granting interest @ 6% per
annum has relied upon the definition of "mesne profit" as
RSA No.234/2010 Page 2 of 3
contained in Section 2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure which
inter alia reads as follows:
(12) "mense profits" of property means those profits which
the person in wrongful possession of such property actually
received or might with ordinary diligence have received
therefrom, together with interest on such profits, but shall not
include profits due to improvements made by the person in
wrongful possession;"
Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the
Bombay High Court reported in AIR 1989 Bombay 309 to support
the submission that the interest is an integral part of mesne
profits.
4. There is no perversity in this finding. The substantial
questions of law have been formulated in para 2 of the memo of
appeal. No such substantial question of law has arisen. Interest
had been awarded on the claim of mesne profits being an integral
part of mesne profits as is evident from the definition of mesne
profits as contained in Section 2(12) of the Code. This was in
terms of the statute. The said finding calls for no interference.
Appeal is without any merit. Appeal as also pending application is
dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
DECEMBER 24, 2010
nandan
