In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that a legal suit seeking possession of property and a subsequent suit claiming damages for its use and occupation constitute distinct legal causes. This landmark decision came as the Court deliberated on an appeal challenging a trial court’s rejection, upheld by the High Court, to dismiss a suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The crux of the matter involved the respondent filing an initial suit for possession in 2006, which was decreed in 2010. Subsequently, in January 2020, the same respondent filed a second suit seeking damages for illegal occupation of the property after the lease had expired.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, the appellant, argued that the second suit was precluded, asserting that the claim for damages should have been pursued within the ambit of the first suit. Dismissing this argument, the Supreme Court referred to a pivotal judgment from the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Ram Karan Singh v. Nakchhad Ahir, 1931). This precedent established that a subsequent suit for mesne profits, filed after an earlier suit for possession and mesne profits had been decided, remained maintainable.
Additionally, the Court cited a Full Bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court (Sadhu Singh v. Pritam Singh, ILR 1976) affirming that a suit for mesne profits following a suit for possession was not barred.
The Court, relying on these precedents, asserted that the second suit was maintainable, dismissing the plea to reject the plaint. It observed, “…suit for possession and suit for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property are two different causes of action. There being different considerations for adjudication, in our opinion, the second suit filed by the respondent claiming damages for use and occupation of the premises was maintainable.”
This ruling serves as a noteworthy clarification on the legal distinctions between suits for possession and those for damages, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future. The appellant was represented by Senior Advocate V Giri, while Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu appeared for the respondent in the case of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. ATM Constructions Pvt Ltd.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
