V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in these proceedings seeks issuance of a writ of prohibition declaring that the 2nd respondent Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, has no jurisdiction to entertain I. A. No. 203 of 88 filed by the Ist respondent.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts in brief are: The 1st respondent herein filed a suit against the writ petitioner and obtained a decree (i) for possession of the suit scheduled properties in the same condition as they were entrusted to the writ petitioner, subject to reasonable wear and tear, (ii) for mesne profits and (iii) for costs. When the matter was carried in appeal, while deciding the appeal and corss-objections filed, the High Court confirmed the first clause of the trial Court s decree, viz. , for possession of the schedule properties in the same condition as they were entrusted to the petitioner, and remanded the matter in so far as the 2nd clause pertaining to the mesne profits is concerned. Assailing the order of remand in so far as the mesne profits are concerned, the writ petitioner filed a Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court The Supreme Court while setting aside the order of remand decreed mesne profits at

Click Here to Read the rest of this document