THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.776 of 2010 Dt:27-07-2010 Between : M/s Variety Steels Sales Corporation, Rep. by its Proprietor, Secunderabad ..Petitioner And Smt.Safia Begum .. Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri R. Chandrashekar Reddy Counsel for respondents : Sri P. Venugopal < GIST >HEAD NOTE: ? CASES REFERRED : (2004) 1 SCC 328 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.776 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.145 of 2004 in the Court o Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Secunderabad ag the petitioner for the relief of recovery of possession and mesne prof respect of the suit schedule property. After contest by the petitioner, th Court decreed the suit on 03-04-2008. Petitioner preferred A.S.No. 2008 before the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. It is stated th I.ANo.1827 of 2008, the lower Appellate Court granted stay of the judg and decree in the suit, on 11.06.2008. On finding that there was no mention of mesne profits in the ope portion, the respondent filed I.A.No.298 of 2009, under Sections 152 153 C.P.C., with a prayer to correct the decree. The application opposed by the petitioner. Through its order, dated 12-10-2009, the Court allowed the application. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. Sri R.Chandrashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petit submits that no specific issue was framed as to mesne profits, nor was any specific direction in the operative portion as to mesne profits, and i view of the matter, there was no basis for the trial Court to allow application. He contends that the trial Court ought not to have entert the application, when the stay granted by the lower Appellate Court operation. He further contends that the application filed by the respondent does into under Section 152 C.P.C., and places reliance upon the judgme State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh[1]. Sri P.Venugopal, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the suit was filed specifically for the re recovery of possession and mesne profits, in respect of the suit sch property, and the trial Court decreed the suit. He contends that his client was not aware of the order of stay, passed b lower Appellate Court, nor did the petitioner bring it to the notice of th Court. He further submits that Section 152 C.P.C., is intended on undertake corrections, particularly when the decree does not conform judgment. O.S.No.145 of 2004 filed by the respondent herein was for the re recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and mesne p thereof. After contest by the petitioner herein, the trial Court decreed the with costs. However, in the decree, that was drawn by the trial C mention was made only about recovery of possession. Though i introductory portion of the decree, the purport of the suit was mention the one, for recovery of possession and mesne profits, nothing was mentioned the relief, as regards mesne profits. Therefore, the respondent file application under Section 152 C.P.C., for correction of the decree, an trial Court allowed the same. The principal contention urged by the petitioner is that the trial did not deal with the aspect of mesne profits, at all, and no issues framed thereon. This contention does not appear to be correct. A peru the judgment in the suit discloses that, only one issue was framed in the at the initial stage, and it reads: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for ?” On finding that the issue was not correctly framed, the trial Cou framed the issues, as under: 1) Whether the notice dated 28-12-2003 is a quit notice under Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act ? and 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction or not ? Therefore, it becomes clear that the initial controversy or emp was, much about the recovery of amount, and later on, it shifted to the one, of eviction. The respondent deposed as PW-1, and the petitioner as DW-1. Exs.A-1 to A-3 were filed by the respondent. The trial ultimately decreed the suit, with costs. The result is indicated, in parag 11 of the judgment, and it reads, “In the result, suit is decreed with costs. Defendant is directed to give vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within 2 months, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to execute the decree”. From this, it becomes clear that the suit is decreed, as prayed fo case the trial Court was not inclined to grant the relief of mesne pro specific mention to that effect would have been made. The relief of mesne profits stands on a different footing, compar other reliefs, that can be claimed in the suit. Order XX C.P.C. deals wi manner in which a judgment must be delivered and a decree must be d in a suit. Rule 12 thereof prescribes the manner in which the decree suit for possession and mesne profits, is to be drawn. It reads, “O.XX Rule 12: Decree for possession and mesne profits.--- (1) Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immo property and for rent or mesne profits, the Court may p decree. (a) for the possession of the property; (b) for the rents which have accrued on the property the period prior to the institution of the suit or dir an inquiry as to such rent; (ba) for the mesne profits or directing an inquiry as to mesne profits; (c) directing an inquiry as to rent or mesne profits fro institution of the suit until,-- (i) the delivery of possession to the decree-holder, (ii) the relinquishment of possession by the judgment-debtor notice to the decree-holder through the Court, or (iii) the expiration of three years from the date of the de whichever event first occurs. (2) Where an inquiry is directed under clause (b) or clause final decree in respect of the rent or mesne profits sh passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry”. The relief as to mesne profits is always dependant upon the on delivery of possession. Therefore, the inquiry into mesne profits is rele to a subsequent stage. If the trial Court proceeds to undertake inquir mesne profits, during the pendency of the suit itself, it is prone to be acc of pre-determining the issue. Therefore, the inquiry in this regard is conducted, after the decree for possession is passed. Instances ar lacking where the Court may not choose to grant mesne profits, at a such cases, the judgment would be clear and specific as to this. If the of mesne profits is not rejected, and the suit is decreed, as prayed fo only inference is that the inquiry into mesne profits is to be cond separately. Rule 12(2) of Order XX C.P.C., clearly directs that final dec that behalf must be passed after completion of the inquiry into mesne pr Another objection raised by the petitioner is that, application Section 152 C.P.C., is not maintainable for amending the decree. S speaking, an important objective underlying Section 152 C.P.C is to c the Court, with the power to make necessary corrections, even if the p fail to notice any anomaly or discrepancy in the decree. For the most p it, it is the duty of the Court, to prepare the decree, and the parties ha role to play in this regard. If the decree does not accord with the judg the duty rests upon the Court, to take necessary steps, either on its accord, or on an application made by one of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judg in State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh (supra). That was a case, in w the Court, which passed the decree; substantially modified the same, a on an application under Section 152 C.P.C. The operative portion i judgment was modified by deleting certain observations and direct That, obviously, is outside the scope of an application under Section C.P.C, the Hon’ble Supreme Court interfered. Such is not the case h Not a syllable is added to the judgment, and the only effort was to e that the decree accords with the judgment. It is no doubt true that an appeal is pending against the decree a order of stay is passed by the Appellate Court. However, the stay doe operate against the power of the trial Court to correct the decree. correction would in fact, present the actual scope of the decree. Hence, the C.R.P is dismissed. There shall be no order as to co ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDD Dt.27-07-2010 KO [1] (2004) 1 SCC 328