MOHANDASS AND ORS. Vs. HAJI ABDULLAH SAIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Tenth Assistant Judge city Civil Court, Madras dated 26th November, 1977 made in Execution Application No. 5080 of 1977 in Original Suit No. 3023 of 1961. The Petitioners herein were Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 in the suit. The suit was one for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The ultimate decree that remained in force was one passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 83 of 1965 on 10th December, 1974 and that decree reads as follows:

(2.) The two questions that arise for determination in the revision petition are:

(3.) As regards the first point, Mr. M.R. Narayanaswami, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, contends that a perusal of the decree passed by the High Court shows that the High Court had not made any provision for the Petitioners reimbursing the Respondent herein with reference to the Court -fees payable by him for recovering the mesne profits. However, this argument is countered by the learned Counsel for the Respondent -Plaintiff putting forward the contention that once the Court had directed that the Respondent -Plaintiff should pay the Court -fees and realize the mesne profits it is implicit that the judgment -Debtors, namely, the Petitioners herein were liable to re -pay or reimburse the Court -fees so paid by the Respondent -Plaintiff. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the Respondent relied on a decision of this Court in Subba Rao v/s. Subba Rao : (1943) 2 M.L.J. 319. The head -note to this decision states: