HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 2026 of 2006 DATE: 23-12-2010 Between: S. Basha …….. petitioner and S. Jameel Basha and another …….. respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 2026 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the plaintiff who filed this Revision Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C., inter alia, assailing the order, dated 21-03-2006 passed in I.A.No.208 of 2006 in O.S.No.280 of 1991 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, which was purported to have been filed under Section 152 read with 153 of C.P.C. seeking amendment of the preliminary decree and also deletion of such portion in regard to the determination of the future mesne profits. The case of the petitioner in this Revision Petition is to the effect that the Court below did not properly consider the facts and chequered events and especially when the suit had already been decreed and the same was confirmed in appeal, there is no question of seeking amendment of the decree at this stage nor the application as has been filed under Section 152 read with 153 of C.P.C. is not maintainable. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants submits that on a reading of the judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court, it transpires that even though in the plaint there is a relief for ascertainment of future mesne profits, but, ultimately in the judgment, that portion is not acceded to nor there is any specific direction for such ascertainment and, therefore, the said relief amounts to have been refused and thus the decree, which imported later portion, is totally contrary to judgment and hence, the Court below was right in allowing the application. After hearing the counsel on either side and on perusal of the material on record, it transpires that the suit, which has been filed by the plaintiff, is one for dissolution of firm wherein there is also a relief of ascertainment of future mesne profits. The suit was decreed on 29-08-1997 and subsequently, the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants in A.S.No.106 of 1997 was also dismissed on 21-03-2001 and the present application was filed in February, 2006. After perusal of the judgment in O.S.No.280 of 1991, it is quite evident that the last portion of the judgment has not given any specific direction, except to the extent of passing preliminary decree with costs by dissolving the firm with a provision to appoint a Commissioner to take accounts and further holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share of the partnership business. There is no mention about the future mesne profits. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the decree is not in consonance with the judgment. However, on a reading of the order of the Court below passed while allowing the application, which is impugned in this Revision Petition, it shows that in order to facilitate the petitioners-defendants to have the relief as passed and also to mitigate further litigation, the application was allowed. There is nothing to say that by allowing the application, any benefit is sought to be accrued to the respondents-defendants. Whereas, in fact, it looks on the reading of the said order as if the lower Court was considering the application at the instance of the plaintiff for inclusion of such relief which would avoid further litigation. On the face of it, the Court below did not pay attention to the relevant facts and circumstances and the scope of the application, which are necessary and expedient for the relief as sought for in the application. In view of the same, the matter requires fresh consideration and disposal. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is ordered. The matter is remanded to the Court below directing to dispose of the I.A. afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to both parties. No order as to costs. ________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 23-12-2010 YCR