JUDGMENT Nirendra Krishna Mitra, J.: The plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 instituted Title Suit No. 13 of 1981 in the Additional Munsif's Court at Hooghly, against Prohlad Chandra Ganguly, since deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, for his eviction from a room in holding No. 34/34, Tolafatak, Chinsurah, on the allegation, that the original defendant was licensee in respect of the said room, but he did not vacate the same after his licence was revoked, and also for mesne profits. The said suit was decreed on contest against the said defendants, Prohlad Chandra Ganguly with costs on 18th June, 1982 so far as the prayer for eviction was concerned, but the plaintiff's prayer for mesne profits was rejected. The appeal being Title Appeal No. 203 of 1982, preferred by the said judgment-debtor, was also dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Additional Court, Hooghly on 27th May, 1983 affirming the decree for eviction passed by the trial court and also passing a decree for mesne profits in favour of the plaintiff directing further that the mesne profits were to be assessed with effect from 9th July, 1977 till the date of recovery of possession of the suit room by the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff/opposite party subsequently, got possession of the suit room on 18th August, 1984 through Court. The Judgment-debtor, Prohlad Chandra Ganguly died on 25th April, 1985 and on 27th July, 1987, the plaintiff-decree holder-opposite party filed an application under Order XX, Rule 12 (1) (c) CPC against the heirs of the deceased-judgment debtor namely, the present petitioners, and on the same date he also filed an application under Order I, Rule 10 read with s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing the said heirs-on-record by way of addition of parties. 3. The petitioners contested the said applications by filing written objections contending inter alia, that the original Judgment-debtor Prohlad Chandra Ganguly died on 25th April, 1985 and as no application for substitution of his heirs and legal representatives had been made in time, the suit stood abated, and no decree for mesne profits could be executed by the plaintiff/opposite party against the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor under such circumstances. 4. 4. Subsequently, on 18th July, 1989 the plaintiff/opposite party filed an application under Order XXII, Rules 4 and 9 read whit s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure alongwith a prayer under s. 5 of the Limitation Act praying for substituting the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor after setting aside abetment on condonation of delay, and the said application was also objected to by the petitioners as not maintainable. The learned additional munsif, Hooghly, however, by his Order No. 85 dated 3rd February, 1989 allowed the said application of the plaintiff/decree-holder/opposite party holding inter alia, that the question of abetment did not arise so far as the present proceeding was concerned and there was no legal bar for the plaintiff-decree holder to proceed against the legal heirs of the deceased defendant in the matter. The said order is the subject matter of challenge in the present revisional application. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the trial court had acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction vested in it by law, in holding that a suit where a preliminary decree for mesne profits had been passed, the rule of abetment as contemplated in Order XXII would not apply, and as the legal heirs of the deceased defendant-judgment debtor had acquired interest of the defendant, they could be brought on record. 6. Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the Court to pass a decree in a suit for possession of immovable property, a decree for both past and future mesne profits. The provisions of Order XX Rule 12 (1), while doing away with the necessity of filing a fresh suit for future mesne profits accruing after the institution of the suit, enables the Court to direct enquiry as to future mesne profits for the period specified in Clause (c) (iii) of Rule 12. When once such direction is given in a decree, it is a preliminary decree and right to apply for ascertainment of the mesne profits arises immediately after passing of the preliminary decree. When once such direction is given in a decree, it is a preliminary decree and right to apply for ascertainment of the mesne profits arises immediately after passing of the preliminary decree. All that Clause (c) of Rule 12(i) of Order XX provides, is that the decree-holder will be entitled for ascertainment of mesne profits only for a particular period, and as has been held in the Division Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Kanailal Maity vs. Shyam Kishore Das and others, AIR 1959 Cal 76 , it is open to the plaintiff-decree holder to make an application for enquiry under Order XX Rule 12, as soon as the decree has been made. 7. Secondly, as the decree for mesne profits as was passed by the Lower Appellate Court in the present case is a preliminary decree, and a final decree for mesne profits is to be passed only after the ascertainment of mesne profits is made by the Court under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit has not come to an end with the passing of such preliminary decree, but it continues, and as such, the trial court, in the present case, has rightly held that the application under Order XX Rule 12 (1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff decree-holder/opposite party, is maintainable, inasmuch as, it has to be taken as an application filed in a pending suit and therefore, the question of limitation does not arise. A proceeding for determining of mesne profits is not, a proceeding in execution so that the rules of limitation would apply, inasmuch as, an execution case is a proceeding for reaping the benefits under a decree, while a proceeding for determination of mesne profits is for the purpose of passing the decree itself, and it is the duty of the Court to bring the suit to a final conclusion by making such determination. An application under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure is merely a reminder to the Court in this regard. An application under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure is merely a reminder to the Court in this regard. Moreover, in the case of Indra Narayan Bera vs. Narendra Nath Patra and another, 78 CWN 712 it held by P. K. Banerjee, J. relying upon an earlier Full Bench Decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Puranchand vs. Ray Radhakrishna, ILR 19 Cal 132, inter alia as follows :- "3. Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee on behalf of the opposite party, however, contended that there is no period of limitation fixed for an application under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is argued by Mr. Mukherjee that suits remaining pending, applications in suits for ascertainment of mesne profits in pursuance of preliminary decree already passed cannot be said to be barred by limitation. 4. In my opinion, the contention put forward by Mr. Mukherjee must be accepted to be correct. It appears from Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code that it is for the court to pass the final decree in accordance with the preliminary decree and after making necessary enquiry, the order should be made. It is also clear that order can be made in a suit which is pending and preliminary decree does not dispose of the suit unless a final decree is passed. Therefore, in my opinion, for an application for ascertainment of mesne profits, no period of limitation has been provided under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code and Article 137 of the Limitation Act has no application. In a case reported in ILR 19 Cal 132 a similar question arose. Their Lordships held that neither Article 178 nor 179 of the Limitation Act applies on an application for ascertainment of mesne profits awarded by a decree in accordance with the provisions of s. 211 or 212 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion, the principle laid down by the Full Bench case applies in all force in this case also and the residuary Article in the earlier Limitation Act being Article 178 was held not applicable in an application under s. 211 or 212 for ascertainment of mesne profits. In my opinion, the principle laid down by the Full Bench case applies in all force in this case also and the residuary Article in the earlier Limitation Act being Article 178 was held not applicable in an application under s. 211 or 212 for ascertainment of mesne profits. In this case also in my opinion, the period of limitation under the residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act does not apply in an application for ascertainment of mesne profits in pursuance of a preliminary decree passed." 8. Thus I find that no material irregularity has been committed by the trial court, in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in it by law in passing the order under challenge and hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the said order. 9. The Civil Order accordingly stands dismissed without any order as to costs. 10. Let this order be communicated to the trial court forthwith and let xerox copy of this order be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on furnishing the usual undertaking. Application rejected.