Case Details M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another vs Atm Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

30 November 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 7890 of 2023

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Vikram Nath, Rajesh Bindal

Citation

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 859 : 2023 INSC 1042

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the appellant u/Or.VII r.11(d) CPC for rejection of the subsequent suit filed by the respondent-owner for damages for use and occupation of the property after expiry of the lease period. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VII r. 11(d) – Application under – First suit filed by the respondent for possession without claiming any damages for use and occupation – Subsequent suit filed only for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property after expiry of the lease period – Application u/Or. VII r. 11(d) filed by the appellantsdefendants for rejection of the said plaint – Maintainability: Held: Suit for possession and suit for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property are two different causes of action – There being different consideration for adjudication, the second suit filed by the respondent claiming damages for use and occupation of the premises was maintainable – Respondent is the absolute owner of the property in dispute – Lease of the property in favour of the appellants by the predecessors-ininterest of the respondents expired in 1997 – After a prolonged litigation, the possession was handed over to the respondent after 25 years – First suit was filed seeking possession of the property – No claim was made regarding mesne profits – Subsequent suit was filed claiming damages for use and occupation of the property from 1998 onwards – Thus, the application filed by the appellants for rejection of the plaint was rightly dismissed by the courts below – Cause of action. [Paras 16, 17]

Headnote

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited v. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited (2013) 1 SCC 625: [2012] 7 SCR 933 – distinguished. Ponnammal v. Ramamirda Aiyar and two others, ILR (1915) XXXVIII 829; Sadhu Singh etc. v. Pritam Singh, Etc. ILR (1976) 1 P&H 120; Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, AIR 1964 SC 1810:[1964] SCR 831; Ram Karan Singh v. Nakchhad Ahir AIR 1931 All 429, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sudera Realty Pvt. Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1161: 2022 INSC 926, Ram Karan Singh and others v. Nakchhad Ahir and others, AIR 1931 Allahabad 429; Raptakos Brett and Company Limited v. Ganesh Property (2017) 10 SC

643 – referred to.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT RAJESH BINDAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the High Court1, vide which the application filed by the appellants/ High Court of Judicature at Madras ATM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.] defendants under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. in the suit2 filed by the respondent-plaintiff, was dismissed. 3. Briefly, the facts as available on record are that the respondentplaintiff is presently the absolute owner of the property in dispute. It was originally owned by T. Pad

View Subscription Plans →