1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Second Appeal No. 32 of 2006 (Mohan Wamanrao Patil Vs. Devilal Kodraji Pande & 3 ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 16 th September, 2008 Heard Shri Dhore for the appellant and Shri Chandurkar, the learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Nisha Gajbhiye, for the respondent no.1. The appellant is the original defendant no.3. An application was filed by the respondent-landlord for an enquiry into mesne profits from the date of institution of the suit filed before the trial Court, till the date on which the possession was obtained by the landlord. The applicant/landlord was the owner of the suit premises and in a suit for possession filed by the landlord against the father of the appellant, a decree was passed by the trial Court on 13/9/1994. The execution proceedings were filed by the landlord in the 2 year 1997 and during the pendency of the execution proceedings, possession of the house property was obtained by the landlord. In terms of the decree for an enquiry into the mesne profits, M.J.C. No. 98/1998 was preferred by the landlord. The trial Court held that the landlord was entitled to the mesne profits @ Rs. 60/- per month for the period from 5/2/1973 till 31/12/1973 and thereafter with increase @ Rs. 50/- per month every consecutive year till the date of delivery of possession i.e. 5/11/1998. The trial Court also granted interest @ 6% per annum from 5/2/1973 till recovery. The judgment passed by the trial Court in M.J.C. No. 98/1998 was confirmed by the first appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 52/2003 by the judgment dated 7th July, 2005. Both the judgments are challenged in the instant appeal. I have perused both the judgments in detail and heard the counsel for both the parties. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of fact based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on 3 record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The submission made on behalf of the appellant that M.J.C. No. 98/1998 was not tenable in view of the fact that earlier M.J.C. was withdrawn by the landlord without bringing the legal heirs of appellant's father on record is liable to be rejected for the reason that while permitting the landlord to withdraw the earlier M.J.C., the trial Court had granted liberty to file a fresh application for an enquiry in the mesne profits and in view of the liberty M.J.C. No. 98/1998 was filed. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the instant appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP