1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.271 OF 2009 Mr.Pramod Vishwanath Yadav & Anr. .... Petitioners V/s. Central Bank of India ..... Respondent Mr.Vijay D. Patil, for the applicants. None for the respondent. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 26, 2009 P.C. 1. The petitioners herein had instituted a suit for possession against the respondent bank being Civil Suit No.694 of 2000. The Trial Court passed decree for possession in favour of the petitioner by decreeing the suit partly with costs. The defendant was directed to hand over possession of the suit shop Nos.4 to 6 to the plaintiff. The trial judge also passed an order for holding inquiry regarding mesne profits as per Order 20 Rule 12 of C.P.C. Thereafter, inquiry regarding mesne profits was started. The learned trial judge by his order dated 25-04-2005, came to the conclusion that the applicant/original plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits with effect from the date of filing of the suit @ Rs.43,000/- and not for earlier period. 2. Against the order of the learned Trial Judge, the respondent 2 bank preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No.510 of 2005. The petitioner herein, have also filed cross objection on the ground that the mesne profits should have been granted from 1984 when the lease came to an end and not from the date of the filing of the suit. The appellate court by its order dated 27-01-2009 dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent bank as well as the cross objections of the present petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the appellate court dismissing the cross objection, the petitioner has filed this civil revision application under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that under Order 20 Rule 12 (b), the Court has also power to grant mesne profits prior to the period of institution of the suit, for which appropriate inquiry can be held in this behalf. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the learned appellate Judge gravely erred in holding that when there is no decree for determination of mesne profits for the period prior to institution of the suit and since there was no challenge to the said decree, it should be restricted only from the period of filing of the suit. In this connection, it is required to be noted that even in the plaint, plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit, has prayed that mesne profits be ordered to be paid by the defendant from the date of the filing of the suit till realization of the possession and he had not prayed for 3 mesne profits prior to the filing of the suit. The appellate Court has found that there is no substance in the cross objection. The finding of the learned appellate Judge reads as under : - “19. The ratio laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate for the applicant cannot be disputed. However, int he present case, in view of the fact that there is no order and decree passed by the trial court for determination of mesne profits for the period prior to institution of the suit as contemplated under sub-Rule (b) of Order 20 Rule 12 and since there was no challenge to the said decree and the said decree having been confirmed, now the applicants cannot agitate that they are entitled for the mesne profits for the period prior to the institution of the suit. In my humble view, therefore, the above judgments are not helpful to the applicants. 3. Even in the plaint, no such mesne profits is claimed prior to the filing of the suit. Considering the said fact, the learned appellate Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the cross objection filed by the decree holder. In my view, plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits, as claimed by him, for the period from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the possession and it cannot be said that the appellate Judge has committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order, which requires any interference by this Court. In view of what is stated above, the civil revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. 4 ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)