Judgment :- K.K. Usha, J. The revision petition is at the instance of first judgment debtor /1 st petitioner in E.A No. 261/95 in E.P.No. 224/98 in O.S. No. 442/82 before the Sub Court Palakkad. The E.A. "was Tiled stopping the execution proceedings on the ground that the decree was not executable and the quantum of profit has to be determine in final decree proceedings. The E. A. was dismissed by the execution Court on the ground that the decree was in conformity with the judgment and therefore, the E. A. is not maintainable. 2. When the revision petition came up for arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the revision is only to be dismissed, but this Court may clarify that the direction given by the trial court that the quantum of mesne profits is left open to be estimated in the execution proceedings under O. XX R.12 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not correct. The wording of O. XX R.12 of the C.P.C. would show that the procedure to be followed is to pass a preliminary and then a final decree under O. XX R.12(ii) quantifying the rent or mesne profits, as the case may be. 3. The judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court in O.S. No. 442/82 were affirmed by this Court in A.S.No. 239/87. Thus a final decree itself has been passed in this case directing inquiry into mesne profits etc. In the light of the provisions contained under O. XX R.12(1) a decree for possession and payment of rent and mesne profits etc. has to be passed and thereafter a final decree as provided under sub-r.(2). The procedure adopted by the Court below is irregular. As was observed by Padmanahhan, J. in Narayana Bhatta v. Lakshmi Amma,1988 (1) KLT 171, the enquiry that is directed is not a procedure in execution, but one in continuation of the original suit. It is true that the judgment of the trial court was rendered before the decision of the learned Single Judge referred above. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Learned Judge that the irregularity committed in the procedure cannot make the decree one without inherent jurisdiction. The execution court is, therefore, bound to execute the decree as it is. But the correct procedure is to pass a final decree in the suit itself. 4. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Learned Judge that the irregularity committed in the procedure cannot make the decree one without inherent jurisdiction. The execution court is, therefore, bound to execute the decree as it is. But the correct procedure is to pass a final decree in the suit itself. 4. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.