( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2006 Vaijanath Ambrushi Barate and anr. .. Appellants Versus Ambrushi s/o. Namdeo Barate & ors. .. Respondents Shri M.P. Tripathi h/f. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 29.06.2009 P.C. :- 1. Adv. Shri M.P. Tripathi h/f. Adv. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil for the appellants appears at 2.30 p.m. and states that when the matter was called out, he was engaged in some other Court. He requests that the order of dismissal of the Second Appeal for non-prosecution may be recalled. In view of the reason given the oral request is granted. The earlier order of dismissal of ( 2 ) the Second Appeal for non-prosecution is recalled and the matter is taken up for admission. 2. Heard Adv. Shri M.P. Tripathi h/f. Adv. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil for the appellants. This Second Appeal is filed being aggrieved by the quantum of mesne profits awarded by the District Judge, Osmanabad, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 147 of 1989 decided on 20.10.2002. As a result of decision of Civil Suit No.249 of 1968 against the respondents for partition and separate possession, a share was given to the plaintiff/appellant. In the said matter means profits were also awarded and enquiry into the quantum of mesne profits was directed by the District Court. Thereafter, execution proceeding is filed and possession of 1 Acre 10 Gunthas and 1 Acre 29 Gunthas was given to the plaintiffs/appellants. 3. In the enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 of the C.P.C., the Trial Court held that the rent received from the tenant by the landlord was Rs.175/- and same to be considered as income. In the appeal, the District Court enhanced the amount to Rs.350/-. The District Court ( 3 ) assumed that the rent would be at the most 1/2 of the income. It may be noted that we have to consider the income in between 1969 to 1979. The 7/12 extract shows that the lands were jirayat lands, as crops like jawar, wheat etc. were taken. There is no evidence to show that irrigated crops were taken. There is no valid reason to hold that the mesne profits determined by the District Court are grossly inadequate and the conclusion is not based on the evidence. 4. Considering these circumstances, this appeal cannot be admitted. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Parties to bear their own costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa190.06