CH ATCHAIAH Vs. P GOPALA KRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in these proceedings seeks issuance of a writ of prohibition declaring that the 2nd respondent Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, has no jurisdiction to entertain I.A.No. 203 of '88 filed by the Ist respondent.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are: The 1st respondent herein filed a suit against the writ petitioner and obtained a decree (i) for possession of the suit scheduled properties in the same condition as they were entrusted to the writ petitioner, subject to reasonable wear and tear, (ii) for mesne profits and (iii) for costs. When the matter was carried in appeal, while deciding the appeal and corss-objections filed, the High Court confirmed the first clause of the trial Court's decree, viz., for possession of the schedule properties in the same condition as they were entrusted to the petitioner, and remanded the matter in so far as the 2nd clause pertaining to the mesne profits is concerned. Assailing the order of remand in so far as the mesne profits are concerned, the writ petitioner filed a Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court The Supreme Court while setting aside the order of remand decreed mesne profits at Rs. 10.000/- per month from the date of suit till the date of decree and atRs. 12.500/- per month from the date of decree till delivery of possession. The first clause of the decree granted by the trial Court has, thus, become final. The said first clause reads:

(3.) Before adverting to the respective contentions of the parties in this background of the facts, it is germane to notice the principles governing the issue of writ of prohibition as laid down by the Supreme Court. In Govinda Menon vs. Union of India the Supreme Court observed: