M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER versus ATM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.

M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER versus ATM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.

The Court held that a suit for possession and a subsequent suit for damages for use and occupation are different causes of action; because the earlier suit sought only possession and did not claim damages, the later suit claiming damages from 1998 was maintainable and the application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC was rightly dismissed.

Parties
Appellants: M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another; Respondent: ATM Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From High Court Order Dated 07.01.2021
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, Order II Rule 2 CPC, Mesne Profits, Damages for Use and Occupation, Cause of Action, Maintainability of Suit
Civil Procedure Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC Order II Rule 2 CPC Mesne Profits Damages for Use and Occupation Cause of Action +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another

Appellants

ATM Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From High Court Order Dated 07.01.2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a plaint seeking damages for use and occupation filed after an earlier suit for possession (which did not claim damages) is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC or liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
  2. 2 Whether suit for possession and suit for damages for use and occupation constitute the same cause of action or distinct causes of action

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that a suit for possession and a subsequent suit for damages for use and occupation are different causes of action; because the earlier suit sought only possession and did not claim damages, the later suit claiming damages from 1998 was maintainable and the application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC was rightly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs