Judgment : 1. The petitioner herein filed suit O.S.No.1188 of 1978 for recovery of possession and for recovery, of a sum of Rs. 1,269 being the rent or damages for use and occupation till the date of the suit and also for future profits till the date of delivery of possession by making a provision for enquiry under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said suit was decreed on 30.12.1989. The respondent herein also delivered possession of the property on 7.3.1990. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the application I.A.No.713 of 1994 claiming the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.50 per month from the date of the plaint till the date of delivery of possession deducting therefrom the amounts received for two fasli years. The said application was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that the decree is dated 30.12.1989 and the application was filed in 1994 and since it is more than three years, the application is barred by limitation. Hence, this revision. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present application filed by the petitioner is only to ascertain the profits and only after ascertainment of the same, the recovery has to be done. The period of limitation is only in respect of the recovery proceedings and not in respect of the enquiry to ascertain the mesne profits. He also relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Ramasubramanya Pattar v. Karimbil Patti, 1940 (I) MLJ 54 (FB) and Pryag Singh v. Raju Singh, 25 Cal. 204. 3. I have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The prayer in the said application i.e. I.A.No.713 of 1994 is as follows: “It is therefore just and necessary that the Honourable Court may be pleased to pass a decree for profits (future profits) from date of plaint i.e. 27.7.1978 till delivery of possession at the same rate as past profits viz. at Rs.50 P.M.; deducting therefrom the amount’s received for two fasli years without prejudice, with subsequent interest till realisation.” 5. From the above prayer, it is clear that the petitioner has not sought for an enquiry for the ascertainment of the mesne profits. They claimed the subsequent amount at Rs.50 per month. So, the application is only for the recovery of mesne profits. 6. From the above prayer, it is clear that the petitioner has not sought for an enquiry for the ascertainment of the mesne profits. They claimed the subsequent amount at Rs.50 per month. So, the application is only for the recovery of mesne profits. 6. Admittedly, the possession was delivered on 7.3.1990, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Court, even though in the petition before the lower Court, there is no reference to the date of taking delivery of possession. When the possession has been taken in 1990 then, within three years thereafter the petitioner ought to have sought for the recovery of the mesne profits as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In this case, that has not been done and as such, the order of the Court below dismissing the application filed by the petitioner as barred by limitation needs no interference. 7. In fact this Court has held in the case of M. Janakirama Iyer v. Meenakshiammal, 1982 (II) MLJ 461 as follows; “It is relevant to note that the very same decision is referred to by the lower Court and it came to the conclusion that under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the limitation is three years for any application for which no limitation is prescribed. The starting point for the three, years limitation period is the date when the right to apply accrues and that in the instant case the right to apply for mesne profits accrued to the plaintiff even on 30th March, 1975, itself because of the properties had been taken, delivery of possession. It is common ground that the application has been filed on 11th December, 1979, and it Is also common ground that the immovable properties in the form of house had been taken delivery on 29th March, 1975. Therefore, the lower Court is correct in having observed that there was no material to infer that the suit was not finally disposed of between the parties. When the plaintiff had taken delivery of the properties and he had failed to move within the period of three years claiming mesne profits, the lower Court is correct in having observed that the application in I.A. No.877 of 1980 was clearly barred by time. When the plaintiff had taken delivery of the properties and he had failed to move within the period of three years claiming mesne profits, the lower Court is correct in having observed that the application in I.A. No.877 of 1980 was clearly barred by time. Therefore, the contention that was raised on behalf of the plaintiff that the application for mesne profits is only a reminder and that the suit still deemed to be pending was rightly repelled and held to be unsustainable and untenable by the lower Court.” 8. In view of the above laid principle also, the order of the Court below cannot be interfered with. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.