Srinivasan, J.

When this second appeal came up for admission on 27. 1993 we passed an order that only one question of law required for consideration by us viz. whether the judgment and decree of the courts below are vitiated by granting future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.1,000 per mensem without any evidence as at present on record and without enquiry under O.20, Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents had taken notice at that time and both counsel expressed their willingness to argue the appeal this week. Hence, we posted the second appeal to this date.

2. Learned counsel on both sides argued the appeal. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that without an enquiry under O.20, Rule 12, C.P.C., the court cannot pass a decree for future mesne profits. It is submitted that under Rule 12(c) of O.20 the Court has to direct an enquiry into rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit. Learned counsel draws our attention to the definition of mesne profits in Sec.2 (12), C.P.C. according to which, mesne profits are those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligenc