pvr １ a450-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.450 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.2537 OF 1992 Arvind Ambalal Patel. ...Appellant vs. 1.Suman J.Patel & Anr. ...Respondents --- Mr.K.D.Shah, for Appellant. Mr.U.J.Makhija i/b. Mr.Sachin Joshi, for Respondents. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 16th August,2011. P.C.:- 1. This is a plaintiff s appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.3.2011 in Suit no.2537 of 1992. The learned Single Judge has decreed the suit of the plaintiff in terms of prayer clause (a) and pvr ２ a450-11 (b). Prayer clauses (a) and (b) reads as under:- (a) That it be declared that the Plaintiff is the owner of the Mercedes Benz 2400 Car bearing Registration No.MMH 9289 described in Exhibit B hereto; (b) That it be declared that the Defendants have no right, title or interest of any nature whatsoever in the said car described in Exhibit B hereto. Thus, the learned Single Judge has passed a decree of declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the motor vehicle and that the defendants have no right, title and interest in that motor vehicle. The learned Single Judge did not pass decree in terms of prayer clause (c). By prayer clause (c), a decree was sought for delivery of possession of the motor vehicle. The learned Single Judge declined to pass any decree in terms of prayer clause (c) because, admittedly, pursuant to order dated 27.12.2004 pvr ３ a450-11 passed in Appeal (Lodg) no.851 of 2004, possession of the motor vehicle was ordered to be given to the plaintiff and admittedly the plaintiff had received the possession of the motor vehicle from the defendants in the month of January,2005. The learned Single Judge, therefore, did not pass any decree in terms of prayer clause (c). The plaintiff s grievance against the judgment and decree impugned in the appeal is that the learned Single Judge should not have declined to pass a decree in terms of prayer clause (e) for mesne profit and decree in terms of prayer clause (e-i) for repair charges. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides on this aspect of the matter. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to pass any decree for mesne profit in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Single Judge has held that he cannot pass decree for mesne profit in favour of the pvr ４ a450-11 plaintiff because he has not passed any decree of delivery of possession. The learned Single Judge has held that the plaintiff received possession of the motor vehicle during the pendency of the suit and that possession was not received by the plaintiff subject to the result of the suit, and therefore, as the plaintiff received possession of the motor vehicle during the pendency of the suit and as that possession was not subject to the result of the suit, his claim for decree of possession is infructuous, and therefore, the Court could not pass decree of possession in their suit. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that as no decree of possession is passed, decree for mesne profit cannot be passed. So far as the aspect that the learned Single Judge has not passed any decree for repair charges is concerned, the learned Single Judge on the basis of the evidence on record has held that the plaintiff was claiming repair charges because they were incurred by the pvr ５ a450-11 plaintiff for carrying out repairs to the vehicle for the damages which were caused to the vehicle while it was in possession of the defendant no.1 as an Agent of the Receiver, from 1992 till 2004. But the learned Single Judge has found that, admittedly, possession of the motor vehicle was received by the plaintiff in January,2005 and the motor vehicle was taken up for repairs only in the year 2007. During the entire period from 2005 to 2007 and till the motor vehicle was taken to the garage for repairs in the year 2007, it was being used by the plaintiff. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that as the vehicle was handed over for repairs after such a long time and as in the mean time the plaintiff was using the vehicle, he cannot pass a decree directing the defendants to pay the entire amount of repair charges. We find that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge on both these aspects of the matter are possible findings and they are essentially the findings of facts and they are pvr ６ a450-11 passed on the evidence on record, and therefore, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.)