1983SCMR611 (PLP)

Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to

7. Date of hearing : 7th March, 1982. M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑This application under section 3 of the Contempt o: Courts ‑pct read with Part V, Order XXVII, rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, arises from C. P. S. L. A. No. 557 of 1978. In that petition, which had been brought by respondents Nos. 1 to 6, a temporary injunction had been allowed at their instance on 4‑1‑1979 on the following terms "If the petitioners are in possession, their possession should not be disturbed till further orders in the petition for special leave to appeal provided that they furnish security to the satisfaction of A. C. Chunian that they will pay the mesne profit from the date of their initial possession up‑to‑date i.e. up till the order of this Court in the P. S. L. A." The security was furnished by respondent No. 7 before the Assistant Commissioner with powers of Collector, Chunian, respondent No.

8. The Civil Petition was dismissed on 12‑6‑1979. Review Application No. 264‑R of 1979 also failed on ll‑.1‑1981. The applicants, who were respondents‑ in the civil petition, then obtained the statement of annual net profits and applied on 30‑4‑1981 to the Assistant Commissioner, Chunian, for payment to them of Rs. 1,12,831 by way of mesne profits from Kharif 1952 to Rabi 1979, The Assistant Commissioner, however, dismissed the application on 31‑5‑1981 for the reason that he had no jurisdiction in the matter, particularly in the absence of any order from the Supreme Court in that regard. Hence this petition.

2. The case of the applicants is that as the respondents are guilty of non‑compliance of the order of this Court dated 4‑1‑1979, they are liable for contempt of this Court. In their reply, respondents Nos. 1 to 7 have stated that the demand of the applicants of' Rs. 1,12,831 is "highly inflated and exaggerated", that a statement of net profits prepared by the same Naib Office Qanungo for the same period shows the net profit at Rs. 55,113, that the demand for mesne profits for the period beyond three years was barred by limitation, that the demand could not be enforced except by filing a suit in the concerned revenue Court and that the respondents having A already brought a suit for declaration on the ground of adverse possession, no final order can be passed or executed against them on the demand for mesne profits.

3. The order dated 4‑1‑1979 is clear that the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 are liable to pay mesne profits from the date of their initial possession up to the date of disposal of the civil petition. The order had been passed with the consent not only of the counsel appearing for the respondents Nos. 1 to 6, but also of Imam Din respondent No. 1 who was present in person. Having obtained the stay on the basis of their undertaking, it is no now open to them to question the order.

4. The A. C/Collector, Chunian, is, therefore, directed to work out and. award the amount of mesne profits in terms of the order of this Court dated 4‑1‑1979 within three month's time. The parties will have the right to represent their case before him. The application stands disposed of. Order accordingly.