- (1.)Heard on LA. No.8096/2014, an application for grant of stay and LA. No.2485/2015, an application for appropriate direction/reply to application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
LA. No.2485/2015 has been filed by the respondent praying that the appellant may be directed to pay mesne profits along with the regular monthly rent and damages and for vacating/modifying the stay order dated 18.06.2014.

(2.)Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently urged that the suit shop is situated at 16-B in New Market, Bhopal and its area is 150 square feet.
According to the guidelines issued for the year 2014-15 the valuation of the suit shop is Rs.39,62,550/- as apparent from Annexure R-1. It is claimed by the respondent that yearly rent of the suit accommodation would be Rs. 1,58,502/- or Rs. 13,209/- monthly. It is further contended that the prices of real estate and rent rates have sky rocketed. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of State of Maharashtra v. M/s Super Max International and Others, (2009) 9 SCC 772; Gurunanak Timber Mart v. Anil Kumar Gulatee and Others, 2012 (4) MPLJ 134; Shabbar Hussain v. Ram Dayal, 2011 (1) MPLJ 366 and Bhagwandas Lakhamsi v. Mst. Kokabai, 1951 AIR 1953 Nag 186.

(3.)On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel vehemently opposing the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent, submitted that earlier no application was filed by the respondent for grant of mesne profit as claimed by her at this stage. Thus, the same would tantamount to modification of the interim order. Claim for mesne profit is beyond the pleading. Learned senior counsel has placed reliance in paragraph 12 of the decision in the case of Bhupendra Kant Bhardwaj v. Rameshchandra Goyal, 2014 (2) MPLJ 286 as well as in the cases of Jamnalal v. Radheshyam, (2000) 4 SCC 380; and Niyas Ahmad Khan v. Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan and Another, (2008) 7 SCC 539.