IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 324 of 2008() --------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF, OTTAPPALAM IN E.P.NO.39/2007 IN O.S.NO.535 OF 2001 DTD.25/09/2007) PETITIONER: PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------------------- MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O KANKADIYIL MOIDU HAJI CHUNANGAD AMSOM, DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MUHAMMED, S/O MOIDU HAJI, KANKADIYIL, CHUNAGAD, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SRI.V.B.RAMANUNNI MENON RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ KHADEEJA, W/O KANKADIYIL MAMMU, CHUNANGAD AMSOM, DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 324 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Ottapalam whereby he has dismissed an application for mesne profits in a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title. The learned Munsiff held that the maximum period for which the mesne profits can be claimed by the decree holder is three years and as the claim is against the existing provision and so he dismissed the execution petition. 2. I am afraid that the learned Munsiff has erroneously approached the matter. The limitation of three years prescribed under Order 20 Rule 12 is for three years from the date of decree or delivery of possession which ever event first occurs. So Order 20 Rule 12 only postulates a situation regarding the restriction of mesne profits after the date of decree which shall not be for more than three years. The suit is of the year 2001. The decree is passed on 15.8.2003. If the decree has become final on 15.8.2003 then CRP NO. 324 of 2008 -:2:- as per the provision the decree holder will not be entitled to get mesne profits beyond 15.8.2006. Therefore the learned Munsiff was wrong in dismissing the application and hence the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh consideration after hearing both sides. After the appearance of the revision petitioner before the Court, the Court shall give notice to the defendants in the suit, fix a hearing date and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Court on 23.5.2008. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-