1. The sole question that arise for consideration before this Court is as to whether the direction for grant of mesne profit can be extended in favour of the appellants in the absence of any pleading and prayer made by the plaintiff.

2. Before deciding the above said question, it is appropriate to detail the series of litigation which this case has gone through.

3. This first appeal was filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 12.9.1997 in Civil Suit No. 3-A/1988 and Civil Suit 4-A/1988 whereby the Additional District Judge, Shivpuri while decreeing the civil suit No.3-A/1988 of the respondent No.1/plaintiff dismissed the Civil Suit No. 4-A/1988 for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction filed by the appellants against the respondent No.1.

4. The instant two civil appeals namely F.A. No. 213/1997 and F.A. No. 214/1997 were filed before this Court assailing above said common judgment and decree dated 12.9.1997.

5. This Court by judgment dated 26.10.2007 passed in E.A. No. 213/1997 and F.A. No. 214/1997 setting aside the impugned judgment and decree by the ADJ, Shivpuri in civil suit No. 4-A/1988 and decreed the civil suit in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs declaring that the appellants are owner of the suit property and were forcefully dispossessed on 15.2.1988, thereby respondent No.1 to hand over the possession of the suit land by removing all the construction within a period of two months from today, failing which the appellants were directed to take possession of the suit property by initiating execution proceedings. Lastly, this Court further directed grant of mesne profit @ Rs. 5,000/- per annum to the appellants from 1988 till possession of the suit land is handed over to them.

6. The matter thereafter travelled to the Supreme Court which vide its final order dated 13.11.2009 in civil appeal No. 7582-7583/2009 while disposing of the said appeals and upholding the judgment of this Court dated 26.10.2007 remanded the case to this Court only on the question of mesne profit by holding that the High Court has not dealt with the issue of mesne profit with good reasons.

7. Therefore, the only issue that is required to be considered is that the mesne profit can be granted to the appellants or not?

8. Order XX Rule 12 of CPC relates to the decree for possession and mesne profit. This provision contemplates that whether a suit is for recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or for mesne profit, the Court may pass the decree inter alia for mesne profit or direct for an inquiry to be held as to such mesne profits. A plain regarding of said statutory provision indicates that the very first prerequisite for entitlement of mesne profit is institution of a suit inter alia for mesne profit, meaning thereby that the pleadings in the plaint ought to contain necessary material facts and consequential relief to entitle the plaintiffs for mesne profit.

9. In this respect the decision of the apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar sharma v. Santosh Kumari, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 600 elucidates importance of existence of pleadings as a prerequisite for grant of relief of mesne profit under Order XX Rule 12 CPC. The apex Court in fact holds that the suit for mesne profit involves different cause of action which is required to be pleaded in specific in categorical terms as it involves disputed question of fact and the Court is not only required to adjudicate the entitlement of mesne profit but also the quantum which necessarily entails the payment of court fee.

10. This Court further draws support and inspiration to emphasis the importance of existence of pleadings in a trial as contained in paragraph No. 55 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and another Versus Mamta Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436, which is quoted below for convenience.

"55. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the Court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadi