Modified decrees quantifying mesne profits must be executed within the original, consolidated execution proceeding.

The plaintiff/decree-holder purchased premises at No. 5, Kiran Shankar Roy Road, Kolkata, in 1994

Finding the defendant in unlawful occupation, the plaintiff filed C.S. No. 223 of 2013 for eviction

On January 25, 2018, the court passed a judgment holding the defendant to be a trespasser, granting a decree for recovery of possession and mesne profits, and appointing Special Referees to determine the quantum of such profits

Following a report by the Special Referees, the court passed orders on August 11, 2022, and December 16, 2022, modifying the original decree to incorporate quantified mesne profits totaling Rs. 84,07,500 (inclusive of interest) as of March 31, 2025

The decree-holder filed G.A. No. 5 of 2025 within the existing execution case (E.C. No. 520 of 2019) seeking recovery of these profits, appointment of a receiver, and attachment of the debtor's assets

The judgment-debtor opposed the application, arguing that the 2018 decree did not quantify profits and a separate execution case was required for the subsequent final/modified decree

1. Whether a separate execution case must be filed for enforcing mesne profits quantified through a subsequent final decree/order

2. Whether the Court can treat an interlocutory application as an amendment to an existing execution case to consolidate various reliefs granted under the same suit

The court applied Order XX Rule 12 of the CPC, which outlines the procedure for passing decrees for possession and mesne profits, specifically directing a final decree after an inquiry

It also referenced Order XXI Rule 11 regarding the requirements of an execution application

The court relied on the principle against "piecemeal execution" as established in Ramdas Mukhopadhyay VS Uday Chand Mahatab Bahadur (AIR 1949 Cal), which prevents a decree-holder from splitting claims into separate execution proceedings

Furthermore, it cited Kusum Kamini Debi VS Sailesh Chandra Chakravorty (1934 SCC Online Cal 166) to affirm that a judgment granting different reliefs should be executed in a single execution case

The court observed that the 2018 decree was not merely preliminary but had already awarded mesne profits, leaving only the quantification to be finalized

It rejected the judgment-debtor's contention that the 2022 modification necessitated a new execution case, holding that a modified decree must be treated as a single judgment for execution purposes

The court emphasized that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree but must facilitate its complete enforcement

Applying the precedents against splitting execution proceedings, the court held that since the date of the decree remained fundamentally the same despite the 2022 modifications, all reliefs (possession and mesne profits) should be handled within the pending E.C. No. 520 of 2019

To ensure procedural efficiency and justice, the court exercised its inherent power to treat the present application (GA 5/2025) as an amendment to the existing execution case

It ordered the appointment of Joint Special Officers to take physical possession of the suit property, authorizing police assistance if the property is not vacated within seven days

Regarding mesne profits, while finding the decree-holder entitled to recovery, the court referred the parties to mediation under Hon’ble Justice Biswanath Somaddar (Retd.) to attempt a settlement

The execution case remains pending, with a direction for the Special Officers and Mediator to submit their reports to the Regular Bench by May 19, 2026