PANIGRAHI, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal raises an interesting point which has led to some divergence of opinion. The plaintiff-respondent purchased two plots No. 1227 and No. 1712, and brought a suit O. S. No. 298 of 1943 in the Court of the 2nd Munsif, Cuttack, for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants who had trespassed upon the suit lauds. In that suit he had prayed for subsequent mesne profits till recovery of possession. The suit was decreed ex parte and the decree directed that the plaintiff should be put in possession of the disputed properties, but contained no directions with regard to the claim for future mesne profits. In execution of the decree the plaintiff took delivery of possession of the disputed plots through Court, on 7-8-1946 and on 31-1-1947. Thereafter, he filed another suit for mesne profits, from the date of institution of the suit till the date of delivery of possession. The defendants contended that the second suit was barred under Order 2, Rule 2 as well as under Explanation 5 to Section 11, Civil P. C. Both the courts below have overruled the contention, and the point for decision is whether the plea taken by the defendants should be