THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No.955 of 2008 And C.R.P.(SR).No.31798 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: Heard both sides. The facts in these two revision petitions are identical. Though the petitioners are different and the respondents, who are the decree holders, are same. Hence, these two revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners/judgment debtors filed these revision petitions under Section 115 C.P.C., against the order dated 22.08.2007 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, in I.A.Nos.538 & 539 of 1996 in O.S.Nos.39 & 40 of 1961 allowing the I.As., filed under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC and Article 137 of the Limitation Act, to appoint a Commissioner for ascertaining the mesne profits from 1.01.1988 to 16.09.1995 in terms of preliminary decree. There is no doubt about the fact that the respondents were awarded mesne profits in the decrees passed in O.S.Nos.39 & 40 of 1961, and the same have become final. The revision petitions filed earlier by the petitioners herein in C.R.P.Nos.3172, 3175 & 3186 of 1990 against the orders dated 4.10.1990 passed in I.A.Nos.1618, 1617 & 1616 of 1989 in O.S.Nos.45, 40 & 39 of 1964, have been partly allowed on 24.01.1996 observing that there is no doubt whatsoever that the Court cannot grant relief beyond what was sought for in a civil suit. The relief sought was only up to the period ending by 1987 and the mesne profits could not be ascertained or awarded beyond that. The mesne profits will be granted from 1958 till the end of 1987 only and the mesene profits granted by the lower Court till date was set aside. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that earlier the objection raised before this Court by the petitioners herein that the respondents are not entitled to claim mesne profits for the period more than three years, under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C., was negatived holding that such objection is not maintainable when the Court granted mesene profits. Having regard to the objections and the submission made by both the parties across the bar, it is evident that admittedly after taking the possession of the property in 1995, the respondents herein filed the present application claiming mesne profits. Normally, in a decree of this nature where possession was already given, the party is entitled to mesene profits till the date of delivery of possession. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification in allowing the revision petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J.) 24th June, 2010 Js.