- (1.)The short point arising in the above Second Appeal is whether the appellants-decree holders were entitled to recover mesne profits from the date of the suit (April 25, 1957) to the date of the decree (March 28, 1963), which was negatived by the IInd Extra Assistant Judge. Ahmednagar, on January 15, 1974, confirming an order passed by the Civil Judge. Junior Division, Karjat, on July 8, 1971, in Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 1967, filed by the appellants for determining the Mesne profits under the decree.
(2.)The two Courts below purported to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in C.Subanna v. K. Subanna, where it was laid down that Order 20, Rule 12, does not empower a Court to direct an enquiry and pass a final decree with respect to Mesne profits for a period exceed ing there years from the date of decree.
(3.)The Rule was thereafter amended by this Court on November 1, 1966; and Order 20, Rule, 12 so far as this Court is concer- ned, reads as follows:
"12 Decree for possession and mesne profits:- (1). Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immoveable property and for rent or mesne profits, the Court may pass a decree (a) for the possession of the property; (b) for rent or mesne profits which have accrued on the property during the period prior to the instituting of the suit, or directing an enquiry as to such rent or mesne profits' (c) directing an enquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit until (1) the delivery of possession to the decree-holder, or (ii) the relinquishment of possession by the judgment-debtor with notice to the decree-holder through the Court (2) Where an inquiry is directed under Clause (b) or Clause (c) of sub-rule (1) above, a final decree in respect of the rent or mesne profits shall be passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry."
It is clear in the Rule as amended, there is no restriction of three years, which was to be found in the earlier Order 20, Rule 12 (c) (iii).