JUDGMENT This application has been filed by the defendants first party and it is directed against an order passed by the trial court on the 6th August, 1966, on a question as to whether the plaintiffs-decree-holders are entitled to get mesne profits from these petitioners or not. The Court has held that the plaintiffs are entitled to get mesne profits which must now be ascertained. The order had been passed on a preliminary objection raised by these petitioners as the learned Judge states. 2. The relevant facts for determination of the point urged in this civil revision are as follows : The plaintiffs had instituted a suit against the defendants first party and others, including one Deep Narain Singh, contending that the latter had sold some lands to the plaintiffs, which Deep Narain Singh had sold again to defendants first party without any just cause. The question agitated in the suit, was whether title had passed to the plaintiffs, under the sale-deed upon which they were relying. All the courts, including the High Court in Second Appeal No. 780 of 1963, decided on the 7th May, 1964, held that title had passed to the plaintiffs under the sale-deed in question, with respect to the lands claimed by the plaintiffs except plot no. 1046. It appears that the plaintiffs had claimed mesne profits from the date of institution of the suit and in that context the trial Court stated thus :– “They are entitled to recover possession of these lands with mesne profits upto the date of deli very of possession from the defendants first party. Defendants first party are directed to hand over Khas possession to the plaintiffs within 60 days from today. From the trial court's decree these defendants had appealed and the court of appeal below stated thus in the last paragraph of its judgment :– “The learned Munsif has, however, committed a mistake in the order portion of his judgment where he has not directed the plaintiffs to deposit the balance of the consideration money of Rs. 500/- in favour of Deep Narain Singh, the vendor (defendant 2nd Party). The respondents are, accordingly, directed to deposit the balance of the consideration money of Rs. 500/- in favour of Deep Narain Singh, the vendor (defendant 2nd Party). The respondents are, accordingly, directed to deposit the balance of the consideration money of Rs. 500/- within 30 days from today, and thereafter the defendants 1st Party will make over possession over the suit lands to the plaintiffs within thirdly days from the date of the deposit of the balance of the consideration money along with the title deeds. Subject to the above modification, the appeal is dismissed on contest with costs. Pleaders' fee at Rs. 32/- ” So far as the Judgment of this Court is concerned, only the question of the plaintiff’s title was gone into and the appeal was dismissed by this Court. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs had applied for ascertainment of mesne profits in the trial court. Defendants first party had in their objection petition' contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to mesne profits at all, as the decree of the first appellate court affirmed by this Court had not granted them any mesne profits. It may be mentioned that in the rejoinder filed by the defendants first party it was mentioned in Paragraph 3 that under the terms of the decree the plaintiffs could have the right to take possession after the deposit of Rs. 500/-, as ordered by the appellate courts. From the impugned order it appears that the only contention raised before the learned Munsif was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any mesne profits at all. This point has been negatived. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged in this Court, that, if the plaintiffs are entitled at all to mesne profits, they can get mesne profits only for the period after the expiry of thirty days from the date when they had deposited Rs. 500/-, in pursuance of the decree of the first appellate court upto the date on which these defendants had handed over possession to them. That is to say, it is argued that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit until upto thirty days of the date of deposit of Rs. 500/- made by them, if at all, as directed by the first court of appeal. That is to say, it is argued that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit until upto thirty days of the date of deposit of Rs. 500/- made by them, if at all, as directed by the first court of appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has contended, on the other hand; that the decree for mesne profits passed by the trial court was not varied by any of the courts of appeal and, therefore, the plaintiffs must get mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit, in accordance with Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is not valid at all. The plaintiffs had been directed by the first court of appeal to deposit Rs. 500/- in favour of Deep Narain Singh, the vendor of the plaintiffs. This in no way affected the decree for mesne profits passed by the trial court against the defendants first party. If the plaintiffs had complied with the order of the first court of appeal and the suit stood decreed, they were entitled to claim mesne profits from the date of institution of the suit, as decreed by the trial court. It must, therefore, be held that there is no merit in the point raised on behalf of the petitioners. The application, therefore, fails and it is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order for costs of this Court. Application dismissed.