SATRUGHNA SABATA Vs. SRIDHARI SABATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF's are the petitioners The suit was for recovery of possession and for subsequent mesne profits and for recovery of future mesne profits till the delivery of the suit land Shorn of irrelevant details, the relevant facts are The suit was dismissed by the trial Court The lower appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the plaintiffs' suil with cost The exact decretal order is to the effect 'plaintiff's suit stands decreed with costs". The second appeals filed against the appellate decree were dismissed. On the basis of the decree obtained, plaintiffs filed an application under Order 20 Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure for determination of mesne profits from the date of the suit till 22-1-57 when they obtained delivery of possession A counter was filed by the defendants alleging, amongst many other grounds that the relief of mesne profits claimed in the plaint was not expressly granted by the decree and shall be deemed to have been refused. The trial Court rejected this objection. In apppeal the learned District judge unheld the defendants' objection and reversed the judgment of the trial court. The Civil Revision is against the order of the learned District Judge.

(2.) MR Tripathy advanced two contentions:

(3.) MR. Panda contends that the order passed by the trial Court was not appealable. The application under Order 20 Rule 12 for determination of future mesne profits had been granted. Until mesne profits are determined and final decree is passed on such determination, the order does not amount to a decree within the meaning of Section 2 (2 ). C P. C. finally and conclusively determining rights of the parties. Under Order 43, C. P. C. also, no appeal lies against such order Mr. Patnaik's contention is well founded in law On this ground alone, the judgment of the learned District Judge is liable to be quashed. On merits also the view of the learned District Judge cannot be supported. Law is well settled that where there is no ambiguity in the terms of a decree. Court is bound to interpret it according to its plain meaning and cannot ignore its terms. Where, however there is any ambiguity in the decree, court may and should construe the decree in order to ascertain its precise meaning. For this purpose, it may refer to the judgment and pleadings in the case (See AIR 1951 SC 189 and air 1960 SC 388'