K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the Additional District judge, Tirupathi, in A. S. No. 75/1988, dated 22-8-1994, whereby the order passed by the Principal District Munsiff, Tirupathi, assessing the mesne profits, has been set aside and the case has been remanded for decision afresh after giving opportunity to both parties to lead further evidence.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this revision may briefly be stated as follows. A decree for possession of the suit lands had been passed by the High Court in S. A. No. 781 /1982, dated 24-4-1987 against the respondent-judgment debtor which preferred a special leave to appeal bearing No. 5760/87. At the instance of the petitioner, the Apex Court granted special leave to it to appeal on 27-7-1987 and was pleased to order stay of execution of the decree of the High court which reads as under :"till the disposal of the appeal there shall be stay of the execution of the decree of the High Court subject to the condition that the appellant shall deposit mesne profits as determined by the Court of District Munsiff, tirupati after affording the parties an opportunity of hearing and leading their evidence as to the quantum amount of mesne profits. The amount of mesne profits shall be deposited within one month from the date of determination. The appellant shall continue to pay the same at the same rate on or before 15th July each year. The respondent is at liberty to withdraw the said amount deposited in the Court on furnishing Bank guarantee for restitution. In the event the appeal fails, the appellant shall comply with the decree forthwith. "

( 3 ) IN preference of the order passed by the Apex Court, the petitioner-decree holder filed an application under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil procedure read with Section 157 of the Code for determination of the mesne profits in respect of the suit lands from the date of his dispossession. Both parties led evidence and the trial Court determined the mesne profits from 3-8-1969 to 30-6-1987 on different rates amounting to Rs. 58,250/- and ordered the respondent-judgment debtor to deposit the said amount within one month from the date of the order (18-1-1988), as directed by the Apex Court. It further ordered that the judgment debtor shall continue to pay the mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per annum from 1-7-1987 onwards by 15th July of every year. This order was challenged in appeal. As noted above, the appellate Court set aside that order and remanded the case for re-trial.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner-decree holder has preferred this revision.

( 5 ) IT is urged on behalf of the petitioner-decree holder that the impugned order passed by the trial Court was not appealable because it is not a decree within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, because no decree for mesne profits had been passed by the High Court in Second appeal No. 781/82. The Apex Court has directed the trial Court to determine the mesne profits after giving an opportunity to both parties and the trial Court has determined the mesne profits accordingly. Under these circumstances, if the respondent was aggrieved by the impugned order of the trial Court, it should have moved the Apex Court and not the 1st appellate Court which has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. It is further urged on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is a reasoned order because it has determined the mesne profits on the basis of the evidence on record that the respondent would have derived so much income per annum.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, relying on Babburu Basavayya and others vs. Babburu guravayya and another and Nallasivam Chettiar vs. Avudayammal, it is contended by the learned counsel of the respondent that the trial Court is competent to pass many interim final decree and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court must be treated as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document