RSA No. 681 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 1900-C of 2010 and RSA No. 681 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 15 , 2010 Satbir Goyal and another ...... Appellants Versus Bhanwar Bai and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellants. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 1900-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded, delay of 588 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 681 of 2010 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the courts below whereby, inter alia, mesne profits for the period 26.12.94 to Jeth, 1999 at the rate of Rs.3000/- per acre has been awarded. It needs to be mentioned here that the learned trial court did not award any interest. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court both the parties went up in appeal. The appeal of the appellants was dismissed while that of RSA No. 681 of 2010(O&M) 2 the respondents was allowed and interest at the rate of 6% per annum was awarded. The following questions have been proposed:- 1. Whether the courts below granted the mesne profit for subsequent two years which was not claimed by the plaintiffs, the findings are erroneous? 2. Whether the plaintiffs who had filed the suit for permanent injunction in the year 1995 and claiming the possession of the plaintiffs, can be said that the possession had not been delivered in subsequent suit? 3. Whether the relief granted by the courts below beyond the pleadings is illegal? 4. Whether the plaintiffs who had claimed any interest, the Appellate Court granted the interest at the rate of 6% per annum, is illegal? 5. Whether there is misreading of the evidence on the record? 6. Whether granting the mesne profit of 100 Kanals 8 Marla on the basis of the statement of PW2 Munshi ram who had produced the record only of 57 kanals, the findings are against the evidence? 7. Whether grave and manifest injustice has been caused to the appellants? Learned counsel has only argued question No.1. With regard to this question I find that this argument was not taken before the learned Lower Appellate Court. I asked learned counsel for the appellants whether this point was considered by the learned Lower Appellate Court but he is unable to point out whether this argument was raised before the learned Lower Appellate Court. In my opinion the appeal would be liable to be dismissed on this short ground. Apart from that, once the possession of the appellants was held to be unauthorised then it would only be equitable to grant mesne profits for the period the respondents were illegally kept out of possession. RSA No. 681 of 2010(O&M) 3 Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 15 , 2010 sunita