Bombay High Court: In a petition heard by a Single Judge Bench comprising of C.V. Bhadang, J., the decision of the trial court to allow all amendments in the prayer except the prayer with respect to compensation/mesne profits was reversed. The suit had been filed in 1992 against the respondents for a direction to demolish illegal structures in the suit property.
While the petitioners contended that future mesne profits are exclusively within the discretion of the trial court and that the court can grant mesne profits even without a specific claim in that regard, the respondents contended that the application for amendment was barred by limitation and the claim can be restricted to a period of three years prior to the amendment.
The High Court held that once the substantive amendment had been granted, the trial court could not have refused to allow introduction of a prayer claiming mesne profits. It stated that “the matters about grant of future mesne profits i.e. from the date of filing of the suit till the delivery of possession are exclusively within the discretion of the Trial Court.” Future mesne profits were held to be of two types: from the date of the filing of the suit till the decree is passed and from the date of the decree till actual delivery of the possession. The amendment was subsequently allowed. [M/s Suvarn Rajaram Bandekar v. Armando Cardozo, Writ Petition No. 2 of 2017, decided on 07.08.2017]
