MT KUNJ KUAR Vs. BRIJ MOHAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in civil revision, and the only point urged before me by Mr. Rajkishore Prasad, on behalf of the petitioner, is that the mesne profits awarded against the petitioner should not include the rent payable by the opposite party to her as the landlord. The claim is in substance irresistible, and it has now been ascertained that the rent due to the landlord for the relevant period is Rupees 102-14-6. Mr. G.P. Singh, who appears on behalf of the opposite party, however urges that the petitioner should not succeed on this ground, because the application in revision as presented to this Court, is directed against the order of the District Judge holding that no appeal lay to him from the order of the Munsif.

(2.) The order of the District Judge was clearly right, and it has not been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the District Judge erred in holding that no appeal lay to him. But the point of the revisional application was that in awarding mesne profits against the petitioner under Section 151, Civil P.C., the rent due to the petitioner as landlord should have been deducted. It is true that in order to enable the petitioner to obtain this relief from this Court, it is necessary for her to amend her petition in some respects; but I do not see why leave should not be given to her to do so even at the present stage, especially when it cannot be disputed, and it has not been disputed, that she is entitled to rent for the period for which mesne profits are to be allowed against her in consequence of the reversal of the execution sale.

(3.) Leave is accordingly given to Mr. Rajkishore to amend his petition. Mr. G.P. Singh hereupon urges that the claim for rent now made was not made, at any rate specifically in the trial Court. This is conceded; but the remedy for this seems to be an award of costs against the petitioner.