IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 28.09.2010 C.R.No.6206 of 2010 (O&M) Ram Pal and others ...Petitioners Versus Ram Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The defendants are in revision aggrieved against an order passed by the learned trial Court on 02.06.2010, whereby an application filed by the petitioners for stay of suit for recovery of mesne profits, was dismissed. The plaintiff-respondents earlier filed a suit for declaration claiming right in respect of suit property on the basis of family settlement dated 25.05.2001. The said suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 19.04.2008, but the first appeal was allowed by the learned first Appellate Court on 05.03.2010. As per the defendants, second appeal bearing RSA No.1311 of 2010 is pending consideration before this Court. The plaintiff-respondents have filed a subsequent suit claiming mesne profits from the date of said family settlement alleging the defendants to be liable to pay for the use and occupation of the said land. In the said suit, the defendant-petitioners filed an application for stay of the proceedings, as the question: whether the family settlement is valid or not is C.R.No.6206 of 2010 (O&M) subject matter of suit for declaration, and, therefore, the issues raised in the first suit are the issues arising for consideration in the second suit as well. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not any merit in the present revision petition. The second suit for mesne profits starts from the stage after the declaration is granted. The plaintiffs shall be entitled to mesne profits only if they succeed in obtaining declaration in respect of family settlement. The cause of action in the two suits is separate and distinct, as has been noticed by a Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Smt. Harbir Kaur and another Vs. Charan Singh Tiwana and others, AIR 1984 P&H 195 that suit for mesne profits is on a separate cause of action than the cause of action for suit for possession. In view of said fact, I do not find that any case is made out for stay of proceedings in the suit for recovery of mesne profits. However, since the issue of family settlement is become subject matter of consideration in a second appeal before this Court, any decree passed by the learned trial Court in a suit for recovery of mesne profits shall not be executed till such time, the decree in a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs in respect of family settlement dated 25.05.2001, attains finality. With the said observations, the revision petition stands dismissed. 28.09.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2