Honble KHARE, J.–Despite, service, the respondents have not appeared in-person or through counsel. We, therefore, proceed to decide the matter in their absence.

(2). The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for partition and allotment of separate half share in the property. The suit was decreed. The plaintiff-respondents put the decree in execution. The decree-holders filed an application under Order 20, Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure for enquiry into the future mesne profit. This was objected by the appellants, who are the judgment-debtors. The application of the decree-holder was allowed by overruling the objection raised by the appellants herein. The judgment- debtor-appellants thereafter filed a revision before the High Court, which was also dismissed. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

(3). Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that the judgments of the executing court as well as the High Court are erroneous inasmuch as the reliance on the decision reported in Rajajai Singh vs. Ranganathappa (ILR 1986(3) Karnataka 2985) and Gopalakrishna Pillai & Ors. vs. Meenakshi Ayal & Ors. (AIR 1967 SC 155), were totally

Click Here to Read the rest of this document