The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that a plaintiff may seek amendment to claim future mesne profits even after trial has commenced, provided the issue of limitation is properly framed for adjudication. The judgment reinforces that court fee on future damages cannot be demanded in advance and must be assessed only after judicial enquiry.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiffs filed Original Suit No. 132 of 2016 seeking damages for illegal occupation of leased premises after the lease expired. They initially claimed damages for a fixed period. Subsequently, they sought to amend the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC to include a claim for mesne profits at ₹12,96,000 per month until the defendants vacated the property.
Procedural History
- 2022: Plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 113 of 2022 seeking amendment to include future mesne profits.
- 19 September 2022: Trial Judge allowed the amendment, framing limitation as a separate issue.
- 29 August 2024: Trial Judge issued a docket order directing plaintiffs to pay additional court fee on the entire future claim.
- 2024 & 2025: Both parties filed Civil Revision Petitions challenging these orders.
Relief Sought
The plaintiffs sought to uphold the amendment allowing future mesne profits and to set aside the court fee directive. The defendants sought to reject the amendment on grounds of delay and limitation, and to uphold the court fee order.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Order 6, Rule 17 CPC permits amendment to claim future mesne profits after commencement of trial, and whether court fee must be paid upfront on unascertained future damages.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Defendants
The defendants contended that the amendment was barred under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC as it was filed belatedly, after trial had commenced, and without pleading due diligence. They argued that claiming damages until eviction was impermissible since the plaintiffs had already claimed damages for a specific period, and that the Supreme Court’s earlier order extending possession until 31.12.2022 rendered the occupation lawful. Reliance was placed on the Full Bench decision in Ram Golam Sahu v. Chintaman Singh to argue that amendments affecting the nature of the claim are not permissible post-trial.
For the Respondent/Plaintiffs
The plaintiffs argued that mesne profits are a continuing cause of action accruing daily, and thus the claim for future profits is not barred by limitation. They cited Indian Oil Corporation v. Sudera Realty and Gopalakrishna Pillai v. Meenakshi Ayal to establish that a tenant in wrongful possession is liable for profits they might have received with ordinary diligence. They further contended that court fee on future mesne profits cannot be demanded until the amount is ascertained by enquiry, as per settled principles.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of mesne profits under Section 2(12) CPC, which defines them as profits either actually received or which could have been received with ordinary diligence. It held that such a claim is inherently continuing in nature, and the cause of action arises afresh each day the defendant remains in wrongful possession.
"The liability of the defendant to pay mesne profits is not dependent upon the actual receipt of the profits."
The Court relied on Indian Oil Corporation v. Sudera Realty, affirming that a suit for mesne profits is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, and that limitation does not bar the entire claim merely because part of it is time-barred. The trial court correctly framed limitation as a separate issue for determination after evidence, which is the proper procedure.
Regarding court fee, the Court emphasized that Section 7(iv)(c) CPC requires court fee only on the value of the claim as ascertained by enquiry. The trial court erred in directing advance payment of court fee on future damages, which remain speculative until determined by a commissioner or court. The Court cited Gopalakrishna Pillai to reinforce that courts cannot dismiss an application for enquiry on grounds of non-payment of court fee in advance.
The Court distinguished Ram Golam Sahu as inapplicable, noting that the amendment here did not alter the nature of the suit but merely extended the period of damages within the same cause of action.
The Verdict
The plaintiffs prevailed. The Court held that amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC to claim future mesne profits is permissible even after trial begins, provided limitation is framed as an issue. It further held that court fee on future mesne profits cannot be demanded until the amount is ascertained by enquiry, and set aside the trial court’s directive.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Amendment for Continuing Claims Is Permissible
- Practitioners may now seek amendment to include claims for future mesne profits, rent, or other continuing damages under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, even if filed after evidence has commenced.
- The burden is on the defendant to raise limitation as an issue, not to block amendment outright.
- Courts must frame limitation as a separate issue rather than rejecting amendments on procedural grounds.
Court Fee Must Follow Enquiry, Not Preempt It
- No advance court fee is required on unliquidated future claims under Section 7(iv)(c) CPC.
- Applications for enquiry into mesne profits cannot be dismissed for non-payment of court fee on speculative amounts.
- Practitioners should file applications for enquiry immediately after amendment is allowed, and pay court fee only upon determination of quantum.
Limitation Is Not a Bar to Amendment
- A claim for continuing damages is not time-barred merely because part of the claim accrued outside the limitation period.
- The doctrine of continuing cause of action under Article 113 applies to mesne profits, rent, and similar claims.
- Courts must avoid using limitation as a procedural trap to deny substantive rights.
