HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.3252 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.Pramod, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioners herein are the legal representatives of the defendant in the suit filed by the respondents in O.S.No.40 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. The respondents filed the suit for partition and separate possession. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by judgment dated 31.12.2007, decreed the suit with costs by way of a preliminary decree holding that the plaintiffs and the defendant are entitled to equal shares in all the plaint schedule properties. It is stated that the first appeal filed by the petitioners-defendants was dismissed. Against which, S.A.No.169 of 2010 is stated to be pending. It is stated that after dismissal of the first appeal, the plaintiff and his legal representatives filed I.A.No.1594 of 2008 in O.S.No.40 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC, stating that the legal representatives of the deceased defendant are not cooperating for division and allotment into two equal shares and postponing the division of the suit schedule properties, that they have filed a separate petition for passing of the final decree and that the defendants are liable to account the income from the suit lands and, accordingly, requested to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to enquire into the mesne profits relating to the income from the suit schedule properties. The defendants filed their counter admitting passing of the preliminary decree on 31.12.2007 and denied the allegation of their non-cooperation for division and allotment of the suit schedule properties and all other allegations made in the petition about the prevention of the plaintiffs from cultivating the land. It is stated that the plaintiffs never pleaded in the suit with regard to the occupation of the properties by the defendants and in respect of enjoyment of the produce of the suit schedule properties and, therefore, the defendants are not liable to account for any mesne profits. It is also stated that, even according to the contention of the plaintiffs, they have been joint possession and enjoyment of their half share in the suit schedule properties and have been cultivating the same and, as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled to contend that they are deprived of their income. It is stated that there is no decree for mesne profits against the defendants and the decree is only with regard to the division of the suit schedule properties into equal shares and the said application is liable to be dismissed. The learned Judge without dealing with the contentions raised either by the plaintiffs or by the defendants simply appointed the Advocate Commissioner to enquire into the mesne profits relating to the income from the suit schedule properties. Learned Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs submits that though no relief was sought for with regard to the mesne profits but still the plaintiffs are entitled to file an application for ascertainment of the mesne profits. I am of the opinion that the impugned order has been passed without assigning any reasons and without dealing with any of the contentions raised by either of the parties. The learned Judge ought to have dealt with the entitlement and maintainability of the said application by assigning reasons. As no reasons have been assigned, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for consideration afresh to pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible without influenced by this order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. V. ESWARAIAH,J Date:29.10.2010 usd