SUSHIL KUMAR SAHNI Vs. UMESH KUMAR SAHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant's grievance is that by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge in a pending suit granted the plaintiff's/applicant's request for proportionate monthly mesne profits determining at Rs. 10,000/- per month. The learned single Judge also stated that such amount would be deducted from the value of the defendant's/appellant's share in the property.

(2.) The parties in these proceedings are contesting two proceedings C.S. (OS) No.1269/2008, in which the respondent is the plaintiff and C.S. (OS) No. 1467/2010, which was filed by one Vinay Kumar Sahni, the brother of these parties. These two suits were directed to be consolidated. By an order passed on 08.07.2013, the court had directed consolidation of the proceedings and at the same time set out the issues for consideration.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the nature of the issues framed in C.S. (OS) No. 1269/2008 as well as some of the issues in the other suit [C.S. (OS) No. 1467/2010] clearly amount to be of contumacious nature vis-a-vis the plaintiff's/respondent's entitlement. It is stated that the direction on the issue of mesne profit, in the impugned order, ought not to have been made. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff urged that the order of the learned Single Judge is merely indicative and does not lead to any adverse consequence. It is submitted that in the event of the plaintiff not succeeding in the suit he would still be entitled to one-third share in the property, whereas such reasoning of the learned single judge is also not correct. It was further submitted that other issues framed in the suit are of formal nature.