1. This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the unsuccessful respondent/defendant is directed against the order dated 23.08.2012 of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru of East Godavari District passed in I.A.No.455 of 2010 in O.S.no.46 of 1995 filed under Order XX Rule 12 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’, for brevity).

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant (‘the defendant’, for brevity) and the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs (‘the plaintiff’, for brevity). I have perused the material record.

3. The facts necessary for consideration, in brief, are as follows:

The plaintiffs had obtained a preliminary decree in O.S.no.46 of 1995 filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties. An appeal in A.S.no.14 of 2001 preferred by the defendant was dismissed confirming the preliminary decree and judgment in O.S.no.46 of 1995. The plaintiffs/ preliminary decree holders had filed an application for passing a final decree and sought for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct an inquiry and determine the mesne profits as per the terms of the preliminary decree. The trial Court, by the order impugned had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct an inquiry and determine the mesne profits as per the terms of the preliminary decree. Aggrieved of the said orders, the defendant had preferred this revision petition.

4. The case of the defendant and his contentions are as follows:

“The petition is filed in the year 2010 for ascertainment of mesne profits, pursuant to the preliminary decree dated 23.01.2001. Admittedly, the petition is filed after a period of more than eleven years. Therefore, the application is not maintainable. The Court below ought to have seen that Order XX Rule 12 of the Code clearly debars filing of any application for determination of mesne profits beyond three years from the date of the decree. The period of limitation is three years as per Article 137 of the Indian Limitation Act. Though the application seeking appointment of a Commissioner for determination of mesne profits was filed beyond the time allowed under law, the trial Court had erroneously allowed the petition and appointed an advocate commissioner and directed him to determine the mesne profits as per the terms of the preliminary decree. The trial Court relied upon a decision, which is inapplicable to the facts of the case. The Court below had passed the order without referring to the relevant provisions of law. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. At any rate, future mesne profits cannot be granted for a period beyond three years from the date of the decree of the trial Court or that of the decree of the appellate Court, as the case may be. The judgment in the first appeal suit was rendered on 27.09.2005 is not in dispute. And, hence the preliminary decree holders would be entitled to mesne profits at any rate until the expiration of three years from the date of the decree of the appellate Court, which has become final.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, while supporting the orders of the Court below, would contend that the preliminary decree has become final and that the parties are bound by the preliminary decree and that any contentions contrary to the terms of the preliminary decree cannot be permitted to be canvassed and that the Court below is not empowered to go behind the preliminary decree. He would also submit that the well-reasoned order of the Court below is sustainable and that the provisions of law being relied upon by the defendant have no application to the facts of the case and that the revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have carefully perused the material record and I have given earnest consideration to the facts and the submissions.

7. Since the issue is relating to appointment of an Advocate commissioner for det