IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3224/2008 Anant B.Joshi Petitioner Vs. Limbawa S.Mali Respondent Mr.Y.Z.Kankaria ,advocate for the petitioner Coram : A.M.Khanwilkar,J. Date :11.7.2008 P.C. 1] Heard counsel for the petitioner.I find no error in the approach of the Court below in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner praying for relief of mesne profit on the ground that no such decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner. The argument of the petitioner is that the relief of mesne profit is consequential relief to be granted. Never the less , the decree has to be specific in respect of relief of mesne profit .If the decree is silent on that point , the executing court cannot be blamed for rejecting the application of petitioner as in this case. 2] In the present case the decree passed by the court below reads thus : '' The appeal is allowed with costs. The decree passed by the trial court is set aside. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 do deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. In case the defendant nos. 1 to 3 fail to deliver the possession 2 to the plaintiff ,the plaintiff to recover the possession through Court for which the Court is to appoint the Inspector of Land Records as a Commissioner to demarcate the suit property out of the land Block no.265. The defendants do pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff ''. Even on fair reading of the abovesaid order it is not possible to assume that the decree for mesne profit has been consciously passed in favour of the petitioner. If it is so , reliance placed on Rule 12 of Order 20 will be of no avail to the petitioner. For , even that rule oblige the Court to pass a decree of possession and /or mesne profit as the case may be , which can be given effect to and executed by the executing court . 3] Reliance was placed on the decision of Narayan Vs.Smt.Rampyari ,2001(3)Mh.L.J.,page 234 . However, in the present case , the relief of mesne profits was expressly prayed . Issue in that behalf was framed and examined by the trial court and answered against the petitioner . The petitioner has succeeded in appeal before the appellate court , however , the appellate court has not addressed itself to the relief of mesne profit nor passed any order in that behalf . In a case of this kind , the executing court cannot accept the request to grant mesne profit on its own . Hence dismissed. (A.M.Khanwilkar,J.) (A.M.Khanwilkar,J.)