1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6673 OF 2009 Mrs.Indumati Navalkar & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. Kamlakant S.Desai & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Vikas Murudkar for the petitioners Mr.V.K.Damle for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 12, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. The challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order passed by the Court of Small Causes by which the application of mesne profits made by the petitioners has been stayed pending the disposal of the Appeal preferred by the 1st respondent herein against the decree. 2 The petitioners filed a suit for possession against the respondents in the Court of Small Causes. A Decree for possession was passed in the said suit. In the Appeal preferred by the 1st respondent, the execution of the decree for possession has been stayed subject to the condition of the 1st respondent depositing an amount at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month from the date of decree till the disposal of the Appeal. 3 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no provision of law under which the proceedings of an application for mesne profits could have been stayed by the trial Court. He submitted 2 that the stay granted by the Appellate Court is confined only to the decree for possession. He, therefore, submitted that the trial Court has committed an error by staying the proceedings of fixation of mesne profits. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent supported the impugned order by submitting that there is no decree passed by the trial Court directing enquiry to be held for determination of the mesne profits. 4 I have carefully considered the submissions. Perusal of the operative part of the decree passed by the trial Court shows that there is no direction issued in terms of the clause (ba) or clause (c) of the Rule 12 of the Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) for holding enquiry for determination of the mesne profits. As there is no direction issued by the trial Court while passing the decree for holding an enquiry for ascertaining the mesne profits, the application for fixation of mesne profits cannot proceed. It is for the petitioners to adopt appropriate remedy for challenging that part of the decree of the trial Court by which the trial Court has not granted relief of holding enquiry. 5 Considering the aforesaid factual aspects, this is not a case where this Court should exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6 Subject to what is observed above, Petition is accordingly rejected. JUDGE