HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusAJAY BHATIA

                         [2022] 17 S.C.R. 527                              527


       HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.                                A
                                   v.
                           AJAY BHATIA
                   (Civil Appeal No. 6859 of 2022)
                       SEPTEMBER 22, 2022                                  B
       [INDIRA BANERJEE AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
       Decree – Execution of – Held: A decree should not to the
extent practicable be allowed to be defeated – At the same time, a
decree can only be executed in respect of the suit property if the
                                                                           C
suit property is easily identifiable – The extent of the suit property
would have to be determined by the Executing Court, as a question
relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree – In
the present case, the suit was in respect of Plot No. 4/4 – Respondent
cannot take possession of any part of Plot No. 4/5 or any other plot
in execution of the decree in the suit which is only in respect of Plot    D
No. 4/4 – Thus, decree is not executable against Plot No. 4/5 –
Respondent is liable to restore the possession of Plot No.4/5 to the
Appellant – Executing Court would have to appoint a Local
Commissioner to demarcate and hand over Plot No.4/4 to the
Respondent – Impugned judgment set aside – Code of Civil
                                                                           E
Procedure, 1908 – Or.7, r.3.
      Cause of action – What is – Discussed.
      Allowing the appeals, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 From the averments in the plaint, it is patently
clear that there were two plots of land, Plot No. 4/4 being the suit       F
property which was inherited by the Respondent from his
grandmother ‘RB’ and Plot No. 4/5, an adjacent Plot, which fell in
the share of other legal representatives of ‘RB’. It is alleged
that the said adjacent plot of land is also in the unauthorised
occupation of the Appellant. The existence of a cause of action            G
and/or, in other words, the existence of circumstances giving
cause for initiation of action is imperative for initiation of a suit. A
suit can only be entertained when the cause of action has arisen
and not otherwise. Any future event does not constitute cause of
action. The cause of action is the fact or bundle of facts which
                                                                           H
                                  527
528            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     would be necessary for the plaintiff to plead and prove, in order
      to get a judgment of the Court in his favour. The cause of action
      is the expiry of the lease of the suit property, that is Plot No.4/4
      and refusal of the Appellant to vacate the suit property in spite of
      request, and the consequential liability of the Appellant to the
      Respondent, to pay damages for wrongful occupation and/or
B
      mesne profits for wrongful occupation. From the tenor and style
      of the plaint, it is absolutely clear that the suit was filed only in
      respect of Plot No.4/4, initially let out to CALTEX, which had
      merged into Appellant and where a retail outlet was being
      operated under the name and style of M/s Azadpur Service Station.
C     The suit property did not include Plot No. 4/5 which belongs to
      other legal representatives of ‘RB’. The owners of Plot No. 4/5
      had not even joined as Plaintiffs in the suit. The plaint proceeds
      on the basis of a lease executed in favour of CALTEX
      predecessor in interest of the Appellant, which according to the
      plaintiff, had expired in June 2003. [Paras 14, 15, 17 & 18][534-
D
      C-F; 535-H; 536-A-C]
            1.2 There is a plethora of documents on record to show
      that two separate petrol pumps/retail outlets were being run on
      two contiguous plots, one of which was initially run by CALTEX,
      which later merged into the Appellant and the other by ESSO,
E     which later merged into the Appellant. There was no connection
      between CALTEX and ESSO. It is also admitted that one of the
      plots have gone to the share of some other descendants of the
      original owner. It is clear that the decree is not executable against
      Plot No. 4/5. The Respondent is liable to restore the possession
F     of Plot No.4/5 to the Appellant. The Executing Court would have
      to appoint a Local Commissioner to demarcate and hand over
      Plot No.4/4 to the Respondent. The suit was in respect of Plot
      No. 4/4. The mesne profits and/or damages were awarded in
      respect of wrongful occupation of Plot No. 4/4. There can be no
      doubt that the verdict of the Trial Court has assumed finality in
G     respect of Plot No. 4/4. The Respondent is entitled to possession
      of Plot No. 4/4. The Respondent is also entitled to mesne profits
      at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month from 1st March 2006, as
      directed by the High Court to make over, till the date on which
      the Appellant offered possession of Plot No. 4/4 to the
H     Respondent. [Paras 44-47][542-C-G]
  HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. AJAY                          529
                    BHATIA

       1.3 The question is whether the Respondent can take              A
possession of any part of Plot No. 4/5 or any other plot in execution
of the decree in suit being C.S.(O.S.) No.1828 of 2006 which is
only in respect of Plot No. 4/4. The answer to the aforesaid
question is obviously in the negative. Order 7 Rule 3 of the Code
of Civil Procedure mandates that where the subject matter of the
                                                                        B
suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description
of the property sufficient to identify it, and in case such property
can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of
settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or
numbers. There could be no doubt that a decree should not to
the extent practicable be allowed to be defeated. At the same           C
time, a decree can only be executed in respect of the suit property
if the suit property is easily identifiable. The extent of the suit
property would have to be determined by the Executing Court,
as a question relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of
the decree. [Paras 48, 49 and 51][542-H; 543-A-B, D-E]
                                                                        D
      1.4 The Respondent is undoubtedly entitled to mesne
profits. The mesne profit at the rate directed by the Trial Court
and confirmed by the High Court will have to be computed afresh,
taking into account all relevant factors. The contention of the
Intervener that M/s Tej Service Station is located over two
adjacent plots, Plot No.4/5 admeasuring 112x60 sq. ft. being part       E
of Khasra No. 403/90 leased by ‘RB’ and another plot
admeasuring 142x60 sq. ft. being part of Khasra No. 66 of Village
Azadpur belonging to the Delhi Government requires
consideration. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that
part of the land belongs to the Delhi Government for which              F
Appellant is paying Revenue to the Delhi Government. [Paras
52, 53-55][543-E-F; 544-C-E]
      1.5 The Appeal relating to the SLP (C) No.20718 of 2021
and the Appeal relating to SLP (C) No.20737 of 2021 are allowed.
The impugned judgment and order is set aside. The Executing             G
Court shall decide the Execution Applications and all related
applications afresh, in the light of the observations made above
by appointing a Revenue Officer as Local Commissioner to
demarcate Plot No. 4/4 and make over possession of the said

                                                                        H
530            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     plot to the Respondent. Any excess land of which possession
      may have been taken, whether of Plot No.4/5 or any land belonging
      to the Delhi Government shall be restored to the Appellant. The
      mesne profits as directed by the Trial Court shall be computed in
      terms of the decree of the Trial Court, as modified by the High
      Court, i.e., with effect from 1st March 2006 till relinquishment
B
      by the Appellant of possession of the suit property. [Para 56][544-
      F-G]
             Pratibha Singh v. Shanti Devi Prasad (2003) 2 SCC
             330 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 406 – referred to.
C                             Case Law Reference
      [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 406                referred to          Para 36
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6859
      of 2022.

D           From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2021 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in EX FA No. 13 of 2019.
             With
             Civil Appeal No. 6860 of 2022
            K.V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Megha Karnwal,
E     Arjun Bhatia, Chanakya Dwivedi, Advs. for the Appellant.
             Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Manmohan Kalra, Viresh B. Saharya, Kunal
      Kalra, Akshat Agarwal, Anmol Chandan, Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam,
      Kapish Seth, Ms. Deepika Kalia, Piyush Singh, Mrityunjai Singh, Advs.
      for the Respondent.
F
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
             Leave granted.
            2. This appeal is against a final judgment and order dated
G       th
      24 November 2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi dismissing the
      Execution First Appeals being Ex. F.A. 13 of 2019 and Ex. F.A. 30 of
      2019 filed by the Appellant.
            3. The Appellant is a Government Company within the meaning
      of Section 2(45) of the Companies Act, 2013 and carries on business,
H
  HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. AJAY                                 531
           BHATIA [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

inter alia, of refining, distributing and marketing petroleum products all     A
over India.
        4. The Appellant operated two separate retail outlets/petrol pumps
namely M/s Azadpur Service Station and M/s Tej Service Station, through
two different dealers, at two different sites at Azadpur in Delhi. M/s
Azadpur Service Station was located on a plot of land admeasuring 9700         B
sq. ft. at 4/4 Azadpur, G.T. Road, Delhi, hereinafter referred to as “Plot
No. 4/4” and M/s Tej Service Station on two plots of land admeasuring
15336 sq. ft. located at 4/5, Azadpur, G.T. Road, Delhi hereinafter referred
to as “Plot No.4/5”.
       5. By an indenture of lease dated 15th October 1970, Shadi Lal          C
Bhatia, since deceased, son of Late Chaman Lal Bhatia, resident of 39,
Security Police Flats, near Ashoka Hotel, New Delhi, leased out land
situated at Mile 4/4, G.T. Karnal Road, Azadpur, Delhi more specifically
described in the Schedule to the said indenture of lease, that is, Plot
No.4/4 to M/s CALTEX (India) Ltd., hereinafter referred to as
“CALTEX”, for a period of ten years, to operate the retail outlet/petrol       D
pump Azadpur Service Station. CALTEX has since merged with the
Appellant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. After the death of
Shadi Lal Bhatia, Plot No. 4/4 was inherited by Mrs. Rajeshwari Devi,
widow of the said Shadi Lal Bhatia. Mrs. Rajeshwari Devi extended the
said lease for a period of ten years.                                          E
       6. Plot No. 4/4 later devolved on the Respondent No, Shri Ajay
Bhatia, son of Shri Anil Bhatia, who is the owner thereof. On or about
18th January 2001, the Respondent applied for mutation of Plot No. 4/4
being the site of the retail outlet/petrol pump known as M/s Azadpur
Service Station.                                                               F
      7. By a letter No.3542/5 AG/2001 dated 20th January 2001, the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi informed the Respondent that the property
was being mutated in his name on the basis of documents furnished by
him.
      8. Plot No. 4/5 was initially let out to Standard Vacuum Oil             G
Company which later became M/s ESSO Standard Eastern Inc,
hereinafter referred to as “ESSO”. By a deed of lease dated 9th February
1961, one Sahabzada Nasirddin Ahmed Khan, son of Nawabzada Mirza
Bashiruddin Ahmed Khan, resident of H. No. 2205/VI, Qasamjan Street,
Delhi, leased out 6,106 sq. ft. land fully described in the Schedule to the
                                                                               H
532              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     said deed of lease, that is, Plot No. 4/5 to Standard Vacuum Oil Company,
      predecessor in interest of ESSO. ESSO and/or its predecessor in interest
      Standard Vacuum Oil Company set up a retail outlet/petrol pump at plot
      No. 4/5 under the name and style of M/s Tej Service Station.
             9. By a letter No. F21 (21)-68-L&B dated April 1969, the Delhi
B     Administration, Land and Building Department informed the District
      Manager of ESSO that ESSO was in occupation of land measuring 958
      sq. yards belonging to the Delhi Administration, and demanded rent
      assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum for the said land, for the period from
      28th September 1968 to 27th September 1969. Delhi Administration agreed
      to execute a lease agreement thereafter.
C
             10. The said lease in respect of Plot No.4/5 which had expired by
      efflux of time was extended for a further period of 10 years at a monthly
      rent of Rs.3,000/- for the period from 1st June 1988 to 31st May 1998
      and Rs.4,500/- per month for the period from 1st June 1998 to 31st May
      2008.
D
             11. The Respondent filed a title suit being C.S. (OS) No.1828 of
      2006 for recovery of possession of Plot 4/4 measuring 9700 sq. ft. situated
      at 4/4 Azadpur, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi.
            12. In the plaint, it is pleaded:
E           “1. That the Plaintiff is the owner and landlord of a piece of
            land measuring 9700 sq. ft. situated at 4/4 Azadpur G.T. Road,
            Delhi. Originally the said piece of land was owned by late
            Shri Shadi Lal Bhatia, S/o Shri Chaman Lal Bhatia, who has
            purchased the said plot of land. Late Shri Shadi Lal Bhatia
F           was the grandfather of Plaintiff.
             …
            3. That originally the vacant piece of land measuring 9700
            sq. yards situated at 4/4 Azadpur G.T. Road, Delhi was let out
            to M/s CALTEX (India) Ltd., which has since merged into
G           Defendant No.1 wherein a retail outlet is being carried out in
            the name and style of M/s Tej Service Station. The said plot of
            land was let out by Late Shri Shadi Lal Bhatia by means of an
            indenture of lease dated 15th October 1970, which was duly
            registered with the Sub-Registrar dist. No.1, Delhi. The copy
            of the lease deed dated 15.10.1970 is annexed as Annexure
H
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. AJAY                              533
         BHATIA [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

  P-1. The land let out has been shown in the site plan as red. A         A
  copy of the site plan is annexed with the plaint as Annexure
  P-2.
    …
  5. That Shri Shadi Lal Bhatia died and after his death his
  widow Smt. Rajeswari Bhatia inherited and estate and                    B
  property was under the tenancy of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2.
  6. The Defendant No.1 and 2 started paying the rent of the
  land to Smt. Rajeswari Bhatia and the lease was further
  extended as per the terms and conditions of the indenture of
  lease dated 15.10.1970 referred to above.                               C

  …
  9. That during the lifetime of Smt. Rajeswari Bhatia she had
  executed a will 5.6.89 and under the said Will the land in suit
  i.e. 4/4 Azadpur G.T. Road, Delhi fell to the share of the Plaintiff    D
  and the Plaintiff was also granted probate/letter of
  administration of the said Will and the land situated at 4/4
  Azadpur G.T. Road, Delhi measuring 9700 sq. yds. fell to the
  exclusive share of the plaintiff and the Plaintiff has therefore,
  become the absolute owner of the said piece of land. It is
  pertinent to mention that even the adjoining land bearing               E
  No.4/5 Azadpur G.T. Road, Delhi fell to the share of the other
  legal representatives namely Shri Anil Bhatia, Smt. Renu Bhatia
  and Smt. Anuradha Kapoor, which is also under the
  unauthorised occupation of the Defendants No.1 and 2. The
  photocopy of the letter of probate issued in favour of the              F
  Plaintiff is also attached as Annexure P-3.
  ...
  15. That the cause of action arose in favour of the Plaintiff
  and against the Defendants when the lease deed expired in
  June, 2003.”                                                            G
  13. In the said suit, the Respondent prayed for the following relief:
  “a) a decree for recovery of possession in respect of plot
  measuring 9,700. sq.ft. situated at 4/4 Azadpur, G.T. Road,
  Delhi as shown in red in the plan may be passed in favour of
                                                                          H
534             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A            the Appellant and against the defendants as shown red in the
             plan attached.
             b) the decree for recovery of Rs. 1965000/- being the damages
             @ Rs. 50000 per month from July 2003 to June 2006 be also
             passed in favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
B            c) A decree for recovery of future mesne profits @Rs.50000/
             - per mensum from the institution of the suit till the realization
             be also passed.
             d) The suit be decreed with costs.

C            e) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
             proper under the circumstances of the case may also be passed
             in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.”
             14. From the averments in the plaint, it is patently clear that there
      were two plots of land, Plot No. 4/4 being the suit property which was
D     inherited by the Respondent from his grandmother Smt. Rajeshwari
      Bhatia and Plot No. 4/5, an adjacent Plot, which fell in the share of other
      legal representatives of Smt. Rajeshwari Bhatia, namely, Shri Anil Bhatia,
      Smt. Renu Bhatia and Smt. Anuradha Kapoor. It is alleged that the said
      adjacent plot of land is also in the unauthorised occupation of the Appellant.
             15. The existence of a cause of action and/or, in other words, the
E
      existence of circumstances giving cause for initiation of action is
      imperative for initiation of a suit. A suit can only be entertained when the
      cause of action has arisen and not otherwise. Any future event does not
      constitute cause of action. The cause of action is the fact or bundle of
      facts which would be necessary for the plaintiff to plead and prove, in
F     order to get a judgment of the Court in his favour.
            16. The cause of action for the suit, in this case, is pleaded in
      paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 15 which are set out hereinbelow for
      convenience:-
             “11. That the period of the lease has expired and after the
G            expiry of the lease period the Plaintiff has been making
             repeated request to the Defendants to handover the vacant
             possession of the said piece of land. Instead of vacating the
             said plot the Defendants have been sending the rent cheques
             in favour of Plaintiff by means of courier. The Plaintiff has
H
   HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. AJAY                                 535
            BHATIA [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

       never accepted the said cheques and has only received the                A
       damages upto June, 2003.
      12. After the expiry of the lease, the Defendants were liable
      to pay damages by way of mesne profits to the Plaintiff for
      being in unauthorized occupation of the piece of land since
      the tenancy had come to an end. That instead of making the                B
      payment of mesne profits the Defendants with some ulterior
      motive started sending the cheques @ Rs. 4500/- per month
      which was not accepted to the Plaintiff. That the tenancy of
      the Defendant was governed by English calendar. It started
      on the 1st day of month and it ends on the last day of the
      month. That the Defendants are liable to pay damages by way               C
      of mesne profits after the expiry of the lease i.e. from June
      2003 @ Rs.50,000/- per month to the Plaintiff till they vacate
      the land.
       13. That in order to avoid any technical objection the Plaintiff
       has also terminated the tenancy by serving a legal notice dated          D
       31.01.06. The copy of the notice sent by the Plaintiff is
       annexed as Annexure P-4. That the defendants have failed to
       vacate the premises…
       …
                                                                                E
      15. That the cause of action arose in favour of the Plaintiff
      and against the Defendants when the lease deed expired in
      June, 2003 and the Defendants were called upon to handover
      the vacant possession and also pay the arrears of damages
      @ Rs. 50000/- per month with effect from July 2003 upto
      date. The Defendants have also failed to deliver the possession           F
      the cause of action arose firstly in the month of July 2003
      and in any case it has finally arisen when the period of one
      month expired after the service of the notice dated 31.01.2006
      and is also continuing to arise till today as the Defendant
      has failed to do the needful. No reply notice was sent both               G
      under registered cover and UPC and the same has been duly
      served but of no effect.”
       17. In a nutshell, the cause of action is the expiry of the lease of
the suit property, that is Plot No.4/4 and refusal of the Appellant to vacate
the suit property in spite of request, and the consequential liability of the
                                                                                H
536             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     Appellant to the Respondent, to pay damages for wrongful occupation
      and/or mesne profits for wrongful occupation.
             18. From the tenor and style of the plaint, it is absolutely clear that
      the suit was filed only in respect of Plot No.4/4, initially let out to CALTEX,
      which had merged into Appellant and where a retail outlet was being
B     operated under the name and style of M/s Azadpur Service Station. The
      suit property did not include Plot No. 4/5 which belongs to other legal
      representatives of Smt. Rajeshwari Bhatia. The owners of Plot No. 4/5
      had not even joined as Plaintiffs in the suit. The plaint proceeds on the
      basis of a lease executed in favour of CALTEX predecessor in interest
      of the Appellant, which according to the plaintiff, had expired in June
C     2003.
             19. Soon after the trial of the suit commenced, the Respondent
      filed an application in the suit under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section
      151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking a summary
      judgment and order/decree for eviction of the Appellant from the suit
D     property.
             20. By a judgment and decree of the Delhi High Court in C.S.(O.S.)
      No. 1828 of 2006 dated 21st November 2013, the Appellant was directed
      to restore the suit property to the Respondent within a period of 12
      weeks from the date of the order.
E
            21. The relevant excerpts from the judgment and decree dated
      21st November 2013 are set out hereinbelow:-
             “4. Admittedly, the suit property was given on lease to the
             erstwhile M/s. CALTEX (India) Limited and has been duly
F            exhibited as Ex.P-1. Defendant No.1 is the successor of M/s
             CALTEX (India) Limited and accepted the relationship of
             landlord and tenant vis-à-vis the Plaintiff and itself. The land
             in question was owned by the Plaintiff’s grandfather, Mr. Shadi
             Lal Bhatia and after his death Smt. Rajeshwari Bhatia became
             the landlady. The lease was extended by a lease deed dated
G            15th October 1970. Smt. Bhatia died on 22nd November 1993.
             During her lifetime she executed a Will dated 5th June 1989
             bequeathing the land in question to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff
             has also obtained probate/letter of administration of the said
             Will. This fact was also admitted by the Defendant in its written
             statement. The probate certificate has been placed on record.
H
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. AJAY                          537
         BHATIA [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

  Defendant No.1 started remitting the rent to the Plaintiff          A
  separately through his attorney Mr. Vipin Arora. The rent in
  respect of adjoining land was being paid by Defendant No.1
  separately to the other legal heirs of the deceased Smt.
  Rajeshwari Bhatia.
  5. Considering that Defendant No.1 has accepted the                 B
  relationship of landlord and tenant and has been paying rent
  for the plot under its occupation to the Plaintiff, it is now not
  open to Defendant No.1 to deny the identity of plot which
  belongs to the Plaintiff.
  6. In the Written Statement, Defendant No.1 claims that the         C
  lease is renewable for a period of 40 years beyond 31st March
  2009. It appears that there is no automatic renewal of the
  lease. Defendant No.1 has not exercised any such right by
  issuing a notice to the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the
  Plaintiff has terminated the lease and filed the present suit
  for recovery of possession.                                         D

  7. The Supreme Court has, in Bharat Petroleum Corporation
  Limited v. Rama Chandrashekhar Vaidya [decision dated 2nd
  April 2013 in SLP (Civil) No.15 of 2010], negative the plea
  taken in that case by Defendant No.1 that there is an automatic
  renewal of the lease. Similarly, the Supreme Court has, in          E
  Depot Superintendent, H.P. Corporation Limited v. Kolhapur
  Agricultural Market Committee, Kolhapur (2007) 6 SCC 159,
  held that there is no automatic renewal of a lease for a
  petroleum retail outlet. Consequently, the statement made in
  para 9 of the written statement that the lease came to an end       F
  on 31st March 2009 is an admission by Defendant No.1 that
  its continuance in the suit property beyond that date is without
  any legal basis.
  8. Consequently, the Plaintiff is entitled, under Order XII Rule
  6 CPC, to a decree of possession on the basis of the above          G
  admission made in the written statement of Defendant No.1.
  9. The suit is decreed in terms of prayer (a) and the Defendant
  No.1 is directed to restore to the Plaintiff the vacant and
  peaceful possession of the suit property as shown in red in
  the plan enclosed with the plaint, which is under occupation
                                                                      H
538            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A           of Defendant No.1, within a period of twelve weeks from
            today.”
             22. The Respondent (plaintiff in the suit) was claiming mesne
      profits at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month from July 2003 in respect of
      9,700 sq. ft. of land being Plot No.4/4. The Court proceeded to decide
B     the issue of “Whether the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits from
      the defendants and if so to what extent?”. Trial commenced in respect
      of the claim of the Plaintiff (Respondent) for mesne profits. The Court
      found that the lease of Plot No. 4/4, came to an end, by efflux of time in
      June 2003. On examination of an approved valuer, the Respondent was
      granted mesne profit at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month with effect
C     from July 2003 till the vacation of the suit property, by a judgment and
      order and decree dated 20th August 2018.
             23. The Appellant filed Regular First Appeal being RFA No. 13 of
      2019 in the High Court of Delhi. By a judgment and order dated
      9th January 2019, the Delhi High Court found that the tenancy of the
D     Appellant in respect of the suit property, stood terminated after the
      Respondent sent the legal notice dated 31st January 2006 terminating
      the tenancy of the Appellant with effect from 28th February 2006. The
      Appellant’s occupation thus became illegal only from 1st March 2006
      and not from any earlier period.
E           24. The High Court partially allowed the Regular First Appeal
      being RFA No.13 of 2019 and modified the impugned judgment and
      decree by holding that mesne profits would be payable not from July
      2003 but from 1st March 2006.
             25. The Respondent filed an application in the Court of Additional
F     District Judge, North Rohini Court, Delhi for execution of the decree of
      mesne profits as modified by the High Court.
             26. The Appellant contends that the Respondent had filed an
      inaccurate site plan along with its plaint, based on which judgment and
      decree dated 21st November 2013 has been passed. There was, thus, an
G     error apparent on the face of the said judgment and decree. The Appellant,
      therefore, filed an application on or about 1st May 2015, under Order 41
      Rule 33 read with Section 151 of the CPC for clarification/rectification
      of the decree dated 21st November 2013. The said application was
      dismissed by an order dated 15th May 2015 on the ground of the same
      being barred by limitation.
H
  HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. AJAY                                 539
           BHATIA [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

      27. Since the Respondent had wrongfully taken possession of Plot         A
No. 4/5 or part thereof, the dealer of the petrol pump/retail outlet, M/s
Tej Service Station filed an application under Order 21 Rule 99 read
with Section 151 of the CPC seeking appointment of a Local
Commissioner to demarcate the area of the suit property.
       28. Pursuant to an order dated 21st March 2013 passed by a Joint        B
Registrar of the High Court, the Execution Petition being Ex. P. No. 163
of 2014 was transferred to the Court of the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, North District, Rohini Court, Delhi and the parties were
directed to appear before the Rohini Court on 2nd May 2017. On 22nd
July 2017, the Appellant filed an application before the Additional District
Judge, North District, Rohini Court, Delhi for addition of the Land and        C
Building Department of the Delhi Administration as party Respondent in
the Execution Petition.
       29. On or about 25 th July 2017, the Appellant filed another
application before the Additional District Judge, North District, Rohini
Court, Delhi, praying for appointment of a Revenue Officer, preferably         D
Kanoongo of the concerned area as a Local Commissioner with a direction
on him to demarcate the area of the suit property. Directions were also
sought to ensure that the attachment done under the process of execution
of the decree on Plot No. 4/5 where the Appellant had been running the
petrol-pump/retail outlet, M/s Tej Service Station, be removed and the         E
said plot be restored to the Appellant.
        30. The Managing Partner of M/s Tej Service Station, Shri Ramesh
Kumar Yadav, made an application for intervention being IA No. 39324
of 2022 in this Court. Pursuant to an order dated 15 th March 2022 passed
in the said application, the intervener, being the Managing Partner of M/      F
s. Tej Service Station has been added as party-Respondent in the Special
Leave Petition.
       31. By judgment and order dated 9th January 2019, the said Regular
First Appeal No. 13 of 2019 filed by the Appellant was partly allowed
and the judgment and decree dated 20th August 2018 for mesne profits           G
was modified by directing that mesne profits would be payable from 1st
March 2006 and not from July 2003 as directed by the Trial Court.
      32. By an order dated 15th March 2019, the Additional District
Judge, North District, Rohini Court, allowed Execution Application No.
799 of 2014 filed by the Respondent for possession of the suit premises
                                                                               H
540                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     and dismissed the subsequent applications filed by the Appellant, that is,
      the application for dismissal of the execution application on the ground
      of the decree not being executable and the application seeking restoration
      of possession of Plot No. 4/5, possession whereof had been taken in
      part execution of the decree.
B            33. On or about 29th March 2019, the Appellant filed Execution
      First Appeal No. 13 of 2019 challenging the order dated 15th March
      2019 in the Delhi High Court. On 19th July 2019, the Appellant filed its
      objections as well as the application under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC for
      stay of the proceedings for execution of the decree for mesne profits.
      The applications were dismissed by a judgment and order dated 19th
C     July 2019.
            34. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed Execution First Appeal
      30 of 2019. Various interim orders were, from time to time, passed.
      Ultimately, by an order dated 24th November 2021 impugned in this appeal,
      the High Court of Delhi dismissed Execution First Appeal No. 13 of
D     2019 and Execution First Appeal No. 30 of 2019 filed by the Appellant.
             35. Mr. Vishwanathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
      the Appellant submitted that the suit had been filed for recovery of Plot
      No.4/4 admeasuring 9700 sq. ft. The suit was decreed in terms of prayer
      (a) of the plaint. Prayer (a) of the plaint specifically refers to property
E     situated at 4/4, Azadpur, G.T. Road, Delhi admeasuring 9700 sq. ft. The
      Appellant was all along willing to comply with the decree and hand over
      possession of Plot No. 4/4 to the Respondent.
              36. Mr. Vishwanathan further argued that the Executing Court
      was required to ascertain the exact description of the decretal property,
F     that is, Plot No. 4/4, Azadpur, G.T. Road, Delhi in terms of Order 7 Rule
      3 and Order 20 Rule 3 of the CPC for the purposes of execution, discharge
      or satisfaction of decree within the meaning of Section 47 CPC by
      appointing a Kanoongo of the concerned area as a local Commissioner
      as per the law laid down by this Court in Pratibha Singh v. Shanti Devi
G     Prasad 1.
           37. Mr. Vishwanathan argued that the Decree Holder
      (Respondent) was claiming possession of Plot No.4/5 by relying upon a
      handmade plan annexed to the plaint. The suit property was not identified

      1
H         (2003) 2 SCC 330
  HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. AJAY                                 541
           BHATIA [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

by boundaries. The handmade map which does not identify Plot No. 4/4           A
being the suit property, cannot be the basis for identification of the plot.
       38. Mr. Vishwanathan submitted that the Respondent was
wrongfully claiming possession of Plot No.4/5 of which he was not even
owner. Part of the Plot is owned by Mr. Anil Bhatia and the others and
the other part by the Delhi Government.                                        B
       39. In respect of SLP (C) No. 20737 of 2021, Mr. Vishwanathan
submitted that the Appellant had paid mesne profit as determined by the
Court till 30th September 2014. The Appellant had all along indicated its
willingness to handover possession of plot No. 4/4. The decree dated
20th August 2018 for payment of mesne profit also referred to Plot No.4/       C
4 admeasuring 9700 sq. ft. The Appellant contends that the Appellant is,
therefore, not liable to pay mesne profit post September, 2014.
      40. The Appellant contended:
      “11. The Decree Holder had the chance of executing the
      decree of possession against 4/4 Azadpur, Delhi, willingly he            D
      did not do so and instead took possession of wrong property
      i.e. 4/5, causing loss to judgment debtor and thus his
      entitlement to mesne profits does not survive.
      …
                                                                               E
      13. Further, it is submitted that the Decree Holder has taken
      the possession of land admeasuring 116* 61 from the
      judgment Debtor on 15.09.2014, hence the calculation for
      mesne profit for complete area of 9700 sq. ft. after 15.09.2014
      is flawed and unlawful. The copy of the report of the bailiff is
      annexed herewith….”                                                      F
      41. Mr. Viswanathan argued that the Respondent has claimed
mesne profits for entire decretal area of 9700 sq. ft. after 15th September
2014. The Respondent Decree Holder cannot claim the entire amount
when he has taken part possession of land admeasuring 7076 sq. ft. out
of which 240 sq. ft. area belong to the Land and Building Department,          G
Delhi Administration.
      42. On behalf of Respondent, Mr. Kalra submitted that the decree
of possession obtained by the Respondent had assumed finality. The
execution proceedings were initiated for recovery of possession. The
Respondent could take possession of 7075 sq. ft. out of the 9700 sq. ft.       H
542             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     on 15th September 2014. The Appellant was directed to remove the
      dispensing units, underground tanks, CNG compressor, overhead tanks,
      which the Appellant has not yet done. The land cannot be used by the
      Respondent as there are explosives stored and the sale of fuel is still
      going on.
B            43. Mr. Kalra emphasised on the fact that there was a site plan
      attached to the plaint which is part of the decree and the decree has
      been confirmed by the Appellate Court. Mr. Kalra also argued that 4/4
      and 4/5 are only landmarks as found by the Courts below and no
      substantial question of law is involved. The appeals are thus liable to be
      rejected.
C
             44. With the greatest of respect, there is no finding by any Court
      that 4/4 or 4/5 are only landmarks. Rather, there is a plethora of documents
      on record to show that two separate petrol pumps/retail outlets were
      being run on two contiguous plots, one of which was initially run by
      CALTEX, which later merged into the Appellant and the other by ESSO,
D     which later merged into the Appellant. There was no connection between
      CALTEX and ESSO. It is also admitted that one of the plots have gone
      to the share of some other descendants of the original owner, Shadi Lal
      Bhatia.
            45. It is clear that the decree is not executable against Plot No. 4/
E     5. The Respondent is liable to restore the possession of Plot No.4/5 to
      the Appellant. The Executing Court would have to appoint a Local
      Commissioner to demarcate and hand over Plot No.4/4 to the Respondent.
            46. It is not necessary for this Court to embark upon a threadbare
      analysis and discussion of the lengthy judgment of the High Court, in
F     appeal before us. Suffice it to mention that the suit was in respect of
      Plot No. 4/4. The mesne profits and/or damages were awarded in respect
      of wrongful occupation of Plot No. 4/4.
             47. There can be no doubt that the verdict of the Trial Court has
      assumed finality in respect of Plot No. 4/4. The Respondent is entitled to
G     possession of Plot No. 4/4. The Respondent is also entitled to mesne
      profits at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month from 1st March 2006, as
      directed by the High Court to make over, till the date on which the
      Appellant offered possession of Plot No. 4/4 to the Respondent.
             48. The question is whether the Respondent can take possession
H     of any part of Plot No. 4/5 or any other plot in execution of the decree in
   HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. AJAY                                 543
            BHATIA [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

suit being C.S.(O.S.) No.1828 of 2006 which is only in respect of Plot          A
No. 4/4. The answer to the aforesaid question is obviously in the negative.
       49. Order 7 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that
where the subject matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint
shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and in
case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a              B
record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries
or numbers.
       50. In Pratibha Singh (supra), this Court held that when a suit
for immovable property had been decreed but the property not definitely
identified, the defect in the Court record caused by overlooking of             C
provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 3 and Order 20 Rule 3 could be
cured. The Court which passed the decree could supply the omission.
Alternatively, exact description of the decretal property might be
ascertained by the Executing Court, as a question relating to execution,
discharge or satisfaction of decree within the meaning of Section 47.
                                                                                D
       51. There could be no doubt that a decree should not to the extent
practicable be allowed to be defeated. At the same time, a decree can
only be executed in respect of the suit property if the suit property is
easily identifiable. The extent of the suit property would have to be
determined by the Executing Court, as a question relating to execution,
discharge or satisfaction of the decree.                                        E

      52. The Respondent is undoubtedly entitled to mesne profits.
Order 20 Rule 12 provides:-
       “12. Decree for possession and mesne profits:-
      (1) Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable           F
      property and for rent or mesne profits, the Court may pass a
      decree-
          (a) for the possession of the property;
          (b) for the rents which have accrued on the property during
          the period prior to the institution of the suit or directing          G
          an inquiry as to such rent;
          (ba) for the mesne profits or directing an inquiry as to
          mesne profits;

                                                                                H
544              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A                (c) directing an inquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the
                 institution of the suit until-
                 (i) the delivery of possession to the decree-holder,
                 (ii) the relinquishment of possession by the judgment-debtor
                 with notice to the decree-holder through the Court, or
B                (iii) the expiration of three years from the date of the decree,
                 whichever event first occurs.
             (2) Where an inquiry is directed under clause (b) or clause
             (c), a final decree in respect of the rent or mesne profits shall
             be passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry.”
C            53. The mesne profit at the rate directed by the Trial Court and
      confirmed by the High Court will have to be computed afresh, taking
      into account all relevant factors.
             54. The contention of the Intervener that M/s Tej Service Station
      is located over two adjacent plots, Plot No.4/5 admeasuring 112x60 sq.
D     ft. being part of Khasra No. 403/90 leased by Smt. Rajeshwari Bhatia
      and another plot admeasuring 142x60 sq. ft. being part of Khasra No.
      66 of Village Azadpur belonging to the Delhi Government requires
      consideration.
             55. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that part of the land
      belongs to the Delhi Government for which Appellant is paying Revenue
E
      to the Delhi Government.
             56. The Appeal relating to the SLP (C) No.20718 of 2021 and the
      Appeal relating to SLP (C) No.20737 of 2021 are allowed. The impugned
      judgment and order is set aside. The Executing Court shall decide the
      Execution Applications and all related applications afresh, in the light of
F     the observations made above by appointing a Revenue Officer as Local
      Commissioner to demarcate Plot No. 4/4 and make over possession of
      the said plot to the Respondent. Any excess land of which possession
      may have been taken, whether of Plot No.4/5 or any land belonging to
      the Delhi Government shall be restored to the Appellant. The mesne
G     profits as directed by the Trial Court shall be computed in terms of the
      decree of the Trial Court, as modified by the High Court, i.e., with effect
      from 1st March 2006 till relinquishment by the Appellant of possession of
      the suit property.

      Divya Pandey and Anurag Bhaskar                              Appeals allowed.
H     (Assisted by : Priyanshu Agarwal, LCRA)