PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for eviction, recovery of possession and mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant No. 1, Hindusthan Fertiliser Corporation Limited was a monthly tenant under her in respect of the ground floor flat at premises No. 432/1, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Calcutta-45 at a monthly rental of Rs. 850/- payable according to English Calander Month. Such tenancy of the defendant No. 1 was on condition that the defendant No. 1 will put it's particular officier or employee, the defendant No. 2 to occupy the suit premises for residential purposes only. The defendant No. 2, upon his retirement from the service of the defendant No. 1 will be bound to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/petitioner. It was further pleaded that the tenancy of the defendant No. 1 was required to be surrendered with effect from30-9-87 upon retirement of the defendant No. 2 from the employment of defendant No. 1. In the said suit the plaintiff/petitioner prayed for a decree against both the defendants for eviction of the defendant No. 1 and his agent and/or licencee and for recovery of Khas possession of the suit premises and for mesne profits for wrongful use and occupation of the suit properties from 1-6-88 up to the date of delivery of possession in terms of Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code. The defendants though appeared in the suit but did not ultimately contest the same. Accordingly, the suit was decreed ex parte. The last paragraph of the judgment stated in precise terms as under :-"that the suit be decreed ex parte without any costs. The defendant No. 2 be ejected from the suit premises. Defendant is allowed 15 days time to vacate the suit property and to hand over Khas possession threof in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff do also get a decree for mesne profit @ Rs. 1100/- p. m. from 1-6-88 till delivery of possession on payment of proper court-fees. " ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that pursuant to the said decree defendant No. 2 vacated the suit promises on 2-9-95. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a petition under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code in the suit itself on 18-12-95. The same was disposed of by the impugned determination dated 6-12-99. " ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that pursuant to the said decree defendant No. 2 vacated the suit promises on 2-9-95. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a petition under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code in the suit itself on 18-12-95. The same was disposed of by the impugned determination dated 6-12-99. The learned trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree of mesne profits amounting to Rs. 95,700/- for the period from 1-6-88 to 30-1-95 @ Rs. 1100/- per month against the defendant No. 2 only, on payment of proper court-fees. The said determination dated 6-12-99 is under challenge in this revisional application on the ground that in view of the case made in the plaint and the ex parte decree passed in the suit, the plaintiff/petitioner is entitled to the aforesaid amount of mesne profit, against both the defendants jointly and severally as they were jointly and severally liable for payment of the same in respect of the suit permises as per the terms of the agreement between the parties and the ex parte decree passed by the court below. ( 3 ) WITHOUT going into the merits of the determination as aforesaid it is necessary to see whether such a determination is a decree or not, because if the same amounts to a decree then the present revisional application will be incompetent. ( 4 ) THE decree has been defined in Section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under :-Section 2 (2) : "decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it conclusively determine the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section 144, but shall not include. (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation.- A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposses of the suit. (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation.- A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposses of the suit. It may be partly preliminry and partly final : ( 5 ) AGAIN Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code provides for a decree for possession and mesne profits and the provisions thereof read as under :-Order 20, Rule 12 :- Decree for possession and mesne profits.- (1) Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits, the Court may pass a decree- (a) for the possession of the property; (b) for the rents which have accrued on the property during the period prior to the institution of the suit or directing an inquiry as to such rent; (ba) for the mesne profits or directing an inquiry as to such mesne profits. (c) directing the inquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit until- (i) the delivery of possession to the decree holder, (B) (ii) the relinquishment of possession by the judgment-debtor with notice to the decree holder through the Court, or (iii) the expireation of three years from the date of the decree (B) whichever event first occurs. (B) (2) Where an inquiry is directed under clause (b) or clause (c), a final decree in respectof the rent or mesne profits shall be passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry, (AP, KNT, K. M.) ( 6 ) THE Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1967 SC 155 (Gopalakrishna Pillai v. Meenakshi Ayal) in dealing with an issue whether the Court has a discretionary power to pass a decree directing an enquiry into the future mesne profits and may grant this general relief though it is not specifically asked for in the plaint observed that with regard to future mesne profits the plaintiff has no cause on the date of the institution of the suit, and it is not possible for him to plead this cause of action or to value it or to pay court-fees thereon at the time of the institution of the suit. The plaintiff therefore can obtain relief in respect of this future cause of action only in a suit to which the provisions of Order 20, Rule 12 apply. Again the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1965 SC 1325 (Chittoori Subbanna v. Kundappa Subbanna laid down as under :-"the preliminary decree directed an inquiry about the mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit upto the date of delivery of possession to the decree-holders. The decree-holder could not have felt aggrieved against the order. The judgment debtor could not have insisted for detailing all the various alternatives mentioned in Order 20, Rule 12 (1) (c) and he could not have expected that possession would not be taken within three years of the decree. The direction about the enquiry with respect to future mesne profits does not amount to an adjudication and certainly does not amount to an adjudication of any controversy between the parties in the suit. It has no reference to any cause of action which had arisen in favour of the plaintiff-decree-holder before the institution of the suit. The direction was given on account of a special power given to the Court under Order 20, Rule 12 (1) (c) of the Code to make such a direction if it considered it fit to do so. It was within the direction of the Court to make the direction or not. The Court does not decide, when making such a direction, the period for which the decree-holder would be entitled to get mesne profits. No such point can be raised before it. The judgment-debtor's liability to mesne profits arose under the ordinary law and a suit for relising mesne profits could be separately filed by the decree-holder. The provisions of Order 20, Rule 12 (1) (c), are just to avoid multiplicity of suits with consequent harassment to the parties. The mere fact that the direction for an enquiry into mesne profits is contained in a preliminary decree does not make it such a part of the decree against which alone appeal could have been filed. The appeal could be filed only after a final decree is passed decreeing certain amount for mesne profits to the decree-holder. " ( 7 ) THE Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the decision reported in AIR 1959 Cal 76 . The appeal could be filed only after a final decree is passed decreeing certain amount for mesne profits to the decree-holder. " ( 7 ) THE Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the decision reported in AIR 1959 Cal 76 . (Kanailal Maity v. Shyam Kishore Das) also observed that where the decree merely stated that the plaintiff will get mesne profits in respect of the lands so long as they remain in possession of the defendants, the direction in the decree must be taken to amount to a direction under Rule 12 (1) (c) or Order 20 of the Code. The Division Bench upon interpretation of Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code as a whole held that where in a decree a direction in accordance with Order 20, Rule 12 (1) (c) has been made there is nothing in Order 20, Rule 12 to prevent a fresh application being made and a fresh decree being made for such relief in terms of the decree already obtained. It is also settled law that mesne profits are determinable in the suit itself. Therefore, in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property along with the claim for future mesne profits the Court is empowered to pass a decree for future mesne profits while passing a decree for possession. Thus, in a suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises under the Rent Act along with the claim for future mesne profits, the decree for possession is a preliminary decree without final adjudication as to the claim for future mesne profits from the date of suit. Order 22, Rule 12 (2) of the Code clearly mandates for a final adjudication on the subject matter of mesne profits in relation to it's quantum and/or the rate at which the same should be determined, the period for which the same is recoverable and the liability of the party to make such payment. Such an adjudication is a final determination of the rights of parties on all the issue involving in relation thereto. Such an adjudication is a final determination of the rights of parties on all the issue involving in relation thereto. ( 8 ) THE definition of decree as provided in Section 2 (2) of the Code also indicates three essential conditions for construing a determination as a decree which are that the adjudication must be in a suit, such adjudication should be on the rights of the partieswith regard to all or any of the matters in controversy and conclusive determination of rights of parties by civil or revenue Court. ( 9 ) THIS claim of mesne profits is a substantive claim and therefore the right to get such mesne profits is a substantive right. If an adjudication is conclusively made by the Court by determining the right of a party to receive such mesne profit, the quantum of mesne profits or the rate at which it should be calculated along with the period of which a party is entitled to mesne profits, and the liability of the party to pay such mesne profit, then it becomes a formal expression of an adjudication finally by the Court on the subject matter of mesne profits in the suit. Because in a controvery between the parties in the suit in relation to mesne profits nothing remains to be decided. The distinction between a decree and an order lies in the nature of the decision but not in the manner of expression. Whatever may be the form and manner of expression by a Civil Court upon adjudication, a decision would be a decree provided the claim is for a substantive right and not merely a processual right and was made in the plaint and where the Court upon adjudication finally determined such right in the suit itself in favour of either of the parties to the suit. ( 10 ) IN the case in hand the suit was initiated on the plaint praying for a decree for possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendants along with a claim for adjudication of the amount of mesne profits receivable by the plaintiffs from the date of the suit till recovery of possession. In such a suit the decree dated 13-6-95 as aforesaid was passed which provided for a decree for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1100/- p. m. from 1-6-88 till recovery of possession. In such a suit the decree dated 13-6-95 as aforesaid was passed which provided for a decree for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1100/- p. m. from 1-6-88 till recovery of possession. On the date of such decree, the Court did not decide the period for which the decree-holder would be entitled to get mesne profits. No such point could be raised before it. Such direction in the decree dated 13-6-95 is a direction made by the Court under Order 20, Rule 12 (1) (c) of the Code. Because of such direction in the decree, the Court itself further on the application of the plaintiff determined a specified amount for mesne profits receivable by the plaintiff but fixed the liability to pay such amount to the plaintiff upon the defendant No. 2. Determination of such specified amount was on the basis of the claim made in the plaint and the date on which the suit premises was vacated by the judgement-debtor. Whatever may be the form of expression of such determination, the decision was a final one in the suit itself in a controversy between the parties over the subject matter of mesne profits which is a substantive matter and not a processual matter, by fixing both the quantum of mesne profits and the liability of the party to the suit to make payment of such mesne profits and the right of the party to receive the same. In other words this determination is the formal and final expression upon adjudication of the rights of the parties to the suit in relation to mesne profits by a Civil Court. The Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in (1923) 27 Cal WN 989 : (AIR 1924 Cal 160) (Raja Peary Mohan Mukherjee v. Manohar Mookherjee) held that whether the order made by the Judge possesses the qualities of a decree, preliminary or final or partly preliminary and partly final, clearly depends upon its contents. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the impugned determination is not merely an order but a decree in the suit in asmuch as the impugned determination cames squarely within the scope of Section 2 (2) and Order 20, Rule 12 (2) of the Code. Hence, in all respect the impugned determination is a decree. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the impugned determination is not merely an order but a decree in the suit in asmuch as the impugned determination cames squarely within the scope of Section 2 (2) and Order 20, Rule 12 (2) of the Code. Hence, in all respect the impugned determination is a decree. The same being a decree is clearly and squarely appellable under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure as there is no other bar to prefer an appeal against the same. ( 11 ) IN all these views, the determination impugned in this revisional application being appellable as a decree, this revisional application is not maintainable. Hence, the same is dismissed. Revision dismissed.