C.R. No.6700 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6700 of 2005 DATE OF DECISION: February 2, 2011 BRIJ MOHAN AGGARWAL ...PETITIONER VERSUS RAMESH CHAND, L.R. ...RESPONDENT (DURGA PRASHAD-DECASED) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: NONE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. NITIN JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The civil revision is at the instance of the decree-holder who challenges the order passed by the Executing Court rejecting his claim for cost and mesne profits. The decree-holder had a decree for possession for redemption of mortgage and possession had also been given on 11.6.2003. The decree-holder relied on the unsigned order alleged to have been passed by the trial Court entitling him to cost and mesne profits. There is no representation for the revision petitioner at the time when the matter was called either in person or through counsel. The case has been identified in the Samadhan Scheme for quick disposal and although shown in the list, counsel for the respondent is present in Court and points out to me that when the appeal had been filed by the judgement-debtor before this Court in C.R. No.6700 of 2005 -2- RSA No.3139 of 1999, a X-objection had been taken by the decree-holder seeking for mesne profits. By a judgement passed on 16.3.2009, this Court rejected the claim for mesne profits and affirmed the view of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court rejecting the claim for mesne profits and costs. The determination of mesne profits did not, therefore, arise and if the plea was rejected before the trial Court, it was justified. I will find no reason to accommodate the plea of the revision petitioner in the manner canvassed in the grounds of revision. 2. The revision is accordingly dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the mortgaged money deposited is still remaining in deposit and the same be released to the judgement-debtor. There shall be such direction allowing the mortgagee to withdraw the amount deposited by the decree-holder mortagor who had been successful in securing a decree for redemption and recovery of the possession. February 2, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE