Judgment ANAND PRASAD SINH, J. 1. By the order under revision dt. 23-6-1981, the Court below has allowed the prayer of the decree-holders for appointing a Pleader Commissioner for the purpose of ascertainment of mesne profits, and, has dismissed the judgment-debtors" application for review of the decree under execution. 2. The main question involved in this case is with respect to the liability of the judgment-debtors to pay mesne profits in the present proceeding. On account of several controversial questions raised by the parties, this case has been referred to a Division Bench for hearing. 3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the opposite party filed T. S. 81 of 1961 on 23-5-1961 for redemption of a mortgage after depositing the mortgage money under S.83 of the T. P. Act. After contest, the suit was decreed on 23-2-1965 with mesne profits against the defendants 1 to 11 who were described as defendants first party. An appeal was filed before the District Judge which was numbered as T. A. 71 of 1965 and was dismissed on 22-5-1972. The judgment-debtors thereafter came to this Court in S. A. 271 of 1972 which was dismissed in Mar., 1973. A Letters Patent Appeal by one of the judgment-debtors was also dismissed and an application for review also failed. The matter was also taken to the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 1867 of 1973 which was rejected on 18-9-1974. The decree holders then put the decree in execution in Execution Case No. 2 of 1975 and delivery of possession was effected in Mar., 1976 and the execution case was disposed of. 4. The decree-holders filed in the suit an application on 22-3-1979 for passing a decree for mesne profits to the tune of Rs. 39543.52. Later, an application under O.20, R.12 of the Code for appointing a Pleader Commissioner was also made. 5. The petitioners judgment-debtors filed a rejoinder objecting to the decree-holders" prayer and later prayed for the same to be treated as a review petition with a further prayer to condone the delay. The decree-holders filed another application by way of reply. 6. So far as the prayer for review was concerned, the Court below dismissed the same as no grounds could be made out by the petitioners. It was also pointed out that the decree had been confirmed up to the stage of Supreme Court. 7. The decree-holders filed another application by way of reply. 6. So far as the prayer for review was concerned, the Court below dismissed the same as no grounds could be made out by the petitioners. It was also pointed out that the decree had been confirmed up to the stage of Supreme Court. 7. A number of objections were pressed on behalf of the petitioners against the prayer for appointment of a Pleader Commissioner for ascertainment of the mesne profits which have been rejected by the impugned order. The petitioner Braj Kumar Singh, appearing in person, pressed the following points in support of the application - (i) No decree for mesne profits was passed in the suit at all and the application of the decree-holders is, therefore, not maintainable, (ii) The amount of mesne profits cannot be determined in the same suit as the decree directed it to be done in a separate proceeding, and (iii) The application of the decree-holders with respect to the mesne profits, having been filed after a period of three years of the date of the decree, (assuming that the suit was decreed in regard to the mesne profits also) is barred by limitation. 7A. I do not find any error in the view of the learned Munsif on the question of review of the judgment in the suit and none could be pointed out by the petitioner in course of the argument. The prayer in this regard is, therefore, rejected. 8. On the point No. (i) mentioned above, the learned Munsif pointed out that in the judgment of the trial Court in the suit, the question of mesne profits was pointedly taken up and the issue separately framed in this regard was decided in favour of the decree holders in the following terms - "They are, therefore, liable for mesne profits from the date of the service of the notice till the date of the recovery of possession. The plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits both past and future. The plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits both past and future. The amount of the mesne profits shall be determined in a separate proceeding for the purpose." It is true that in the formal decree drawn by the Court, the decree for mesne profits is not separately mentioned in express terms, but the direction therein that the suit was decreed on contest against the defendants 1st set with costs must be interpreted as having decreed the mesne profits also in accordance with the judgment. So there does not appear to be any merit in this objection either. 9. I also do not find any merit whatsoever in the contention of the petitioners that a separate suit has to be filed for the purpose of ascertainment of mesne profits and relief cannot be granted in the present suit, as the judgment had directed the amount of mesne profits to be determined in a separate proceeding. By making such an order, the court below was merely postponing the final determination of the mesne profits till after the passing of the preliminary decree. The form in which the judgment was delivered is not unknown in almost all similar suits as well as in suits for partition, such a direction is given and it has been uniformly understood as a direction for preparation of a final decree in regard to the mesne profits or partition of properties as the case may be in the same suit. 10. Elaborate arguments were pressed by the petitioner on the assumption that the impugned proceeding for determination of mesne profits is a proceeding in execution and the rules of limitation relating to execution proceedings are applicable. This is clearly a misconception. An execution case is a proceeding for reaping the benefits under a decree and cannot be confused with a proceeding for determination of mesne profits which is for the purpose of passing the decree itself. I, therefore, do not consider it useful to refer and discuss a large number of decisions relied on by the petitioner dealing with the law of limitation applicable to execution cases. By the appointment of a Pleader Commissioner for the purpose of determining the mesne profits, the original suit itself is proceeding further in accordance with the preliminary decree for the purpose of passing a final decree. By the appointment of a Pleader Commissioner for the purpose of determining the mesne profits, the original suit itself is proceeding further in accordance with the preliminary decree for the purpose of passing a final decree. It is the duty of the Court to bring the suit to a final conclusion and the application by the decree-holders is merely a reminder to the Court in this regard. No question of limitation, therefore, arises with respect to this proceeding. 11. Mr. B. K. Singh, alternatively argued that the future mesne profits can be granted only with respect to a period of three years from the date of the decree and since the suit was decreed on 23-2-65, the decree holders were not entitled to make any claim for the period after 23-2-68. He relied on Cl.(iii) of O.20 R.12(1)(c) which reads as follows - "Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits, the Court may pass a decree - ........ (c) directing an enquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit until - (i) the delivery of possession to the decree holder, (ii) the relinquishment of possession by the judgment-debtor with notice to the decree-holder through the Court, or (iii) the expiration of three years from the date of the decree whichever event first occurs. The period for which the rule permits a decree for mesne profits to be passed commences on the date the suit is instituted. The question which remains to be answered is as to when this period comes to an end, that is what is the meaning of the expression "the date of the decree". It is firmly established that a decree passed by the trial court merges in the decree of the appellate court and it is only the decree of the appellate court which is operative. The point was settled by the Privy Council in Bhupindar Bahadur Singh V/s. Bijai Bahadur Singh (1900) 27 Ind App 209 and followed by the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Radha. Nath Singh V/s. Chandi Charan Singh, (1903) ILR 30 Cal 660 and in numerous later cases. The principle is applicable to a second appeal also. Since the second appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by this Court in Mar. Nath Singh V/s. Chandi Charan Singh, (1903) ILR 30 Cal 660 and in numerous later cases. The principle is applicable to a second appeal also. Since the second appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by this Court in Mar. 1973 and delivery of possession was effected in March, 1976 the judgment debtors are liable for mesne profits till the date of the delivery of possession. 12. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the points urged by the petitioners. The civil revision application is, therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. 13. I agree.