O R A L O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Order dated 14-2-2003 made in I.A.No.751 of 2002 in O.S.No.152 of 1993 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the above suit, which was laid for partition of the suit schedule property against his minor son represented by his mother and natural guardian Chalasani Seetha. The suit was decreed. Thereafter, the present petition in I.A.No.751 of 2002 was filed by the defendant seeking to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to determine the mesne profits due to him towards his half share and for subsequent interest and costs. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was stated that the suit was decreed for partition; but, insofar as mesne profits are concerned, the Court below did not pass any Order. The plaint schedule property consists of a house at Tenali and land at Bhatlapenumarru village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District. The house property fetches huge rents and previously it was used for hospital purpose. The average monthly rent of plaint ‘A’ schedule property is not less than Rs.5,000/-. So also, plaint ‘B’ schedule property is a fertile land, which yields 30 bags of paddy and four bags of blackgram per acre per annum. The rate of paddy per bag was not less than Rs.400/- and blackgram was not less than Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, the plaintiff has to account for the profits from A and B schedule properties from the date of suit i.e. 31-7-1993 till the date of delivery of possession to the defendant. 3. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing a counter affidavit stating inter alia that there is no decree for mesne profits. Though there is a prayer by the plaintiff for mesne profits, the same is not granted in the suit. As such, the remedy of the defendant is only to prefer an appeal and not by way of present application. Plaint ‘B’ schedule property has been under the lease of one Chelasani Venkata Krishna Kishore on a maktha of 16 bags of paddy per acre, since more than 10 years. The lands do not yield any blackgram. ‘A’ schedule house property is lying vacant, since it has become old. Plaint ‘B’ schedule property has been under the lease of one Chelasani Venkata Krishna Kishore on a maktha of 16 bags of paddy per acre, since more than 10 years. The lands do not yield any blackgram. ‘A’ schedule house property is lying vacant, since it has become old. The plaintiff requested his friend and Advocate to reside in a portion of the house to protect the same from being misused. Even now, most of the house is vacant and a portion of house has become dilapidated. As such, the respondent is not getting any rent except the amount sufficient for payment of house tax and to meet the repairs. 4. After a detailed consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel -on either side, the Court below ordered the application and appointed Sri Ch.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate as a Commissioner to conduct enquiry of mesne profits over the plaint schedule property from the date of suit till the date of filing of the said IA. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that in the absence of any pleading and in the absence of any preliminary decree being made granting mesne profits, the present application for mesne profits is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel relied upon the Judgment reported in WAHEEDUDDIN v. MAHMOODA BEGUM(1) wherein it has been observed as under : “It is stated in the memo of grounds filed by the petitioner that there was no relief asked for by the plaintiff for mesne profits before the court below and the order passed by the court below directing the appointment of a commissioner is an order passed in IA. intending to govern the situation till the disposal of the appeal. I am satisfied that where the preliminary decree does not provide for the grant of mesne profits, either when no claim towards mesne profits was made or when made if it was rejected, the plaintiff will not be entitled for mesne profits. If he is not entitled, he cannot file an application requesting the court below to appoint a commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining mesne profits. If he is not entitled, he cannot file an application requesting the court below to appoint a commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining mesne profits. When the preliminary decree does not confer a right upon the plaintiff with respect to mesne profits, direction contained in the order passed by the High Court pending disposal of the matter before the High Court must be construed as intended merely to govern the situation till the disposal of the appeal. That may not clothe the petitioner with any right. The source of conferral of any right to the plaintiff is the preliminary decree..” and submitted that once the preliminary decree does not provide for grant of mesne profits, either when no claim towards mesne profits was made or when made, if it was rejected, the defendant is not entitled for mesne profits. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent strenuously contended that the Court below has not decided as to from which date, i.e. either from the date of the suit or from the date of the decree, the respondent/defendant is entitled for mesne profits. What the Court below did is only appointment of Commissioner to conduct an enquiry of the mesne profits over the plaint schedule property from the date of the suit till the date of filing of the application. Therefore, even if there is any dispute as to from which date the respondent/defendant is entitled for mesne profits, that can be gone into in the final decree proceedings and at this stage, the petitioner has no cause of action to maintain the present Civil Revision Petition. In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon the Judgments reported in SATYANARAYANA v. MALLIKARJUNA(2) wherein it has been observed that: “In a partition action even though there is no specific prayer for the ascertainment of profits subsequent to the institution of the suit and the preliminary decree did not contain any such direction, it is still competent for the court to give the direction for the ascertainment of future mesne profits, provided a final decree has not been passed. Therefore, an application for ascertainment of such profits is entitled to be considered on merits and not to be rejected on the ground that ascertainment of profits has not been asked for in the plaint. Therefore, an application for ascertainment of such profits is entitled to be considered on merits and not to be rejected on the ground that ascertainment of profits has not been asked for in the plaint. It is for the Court entertaining that application to determine whether the discretion should be exercised in giving a direction in the partition suit itself or refer the parties to a separate suit.” and submitted that even in the final decree proceedings, the matter can be agitated. 7. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned Order and also other material made available on record. 8. There is no prohibition in the Civil Procedure Code against passing of more than one preliminary decree prior to a final and executable decree and it is well settled that so long as a final decree has not been passed, a partition suit must be deemed to be pending and in proper cases, it is competent for the Court to give directions as to the enquiry into the future mesne profits. Even in the Judgment reported in SATYANARAYANA’s case (2 supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that even though the preliminary decree does not contain any direction as to ascertainment of mesne profits, an application for ascertainment of such profits is entitled to be considered on its own merits and not to be rejected and it is for the Court entertaining an application under Order XX Rules 12 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Code to determine whether the discretion should be exercised in giving a direction in the partition suit itself or refer the parties to a separate suit. Even after passing a preliminary decree, it is open to the Court to give appropriate directions, amongst other matters regarding the future mesne profits, either suo motu or on the application of the parties, in order to prevent multiplicity of litigation and to do complete justice between the parties {See BASAVAYYA v, GURAVAYYA (AIR 1951 Madras 938}. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice, the Court below, exercised the discretion left to it and appointed an Commissioner to conduct an enquiry into the mesne profits, instead of driving the defendant to prefer an appeal against the preliminary decree. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice, the Court below, exercised the discretion left to it and appointed an Commissioner to conduct an enquiry into the mesne profits, instead of driving the defendant to prefer an appeal against the preliminary decree. 9. I am of the opinion that the Court below has not committed any error in appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to conduct enquiry into the mesne profits over the plaint schedule properties from the date of the suit till the date of filing of the application. Admittedly, the present application in I.A.No.751 of 2002 was filed only after a preliminary decree was passed and final decree proceedings are pending. It is always open for the parties to agitate as to the entitlement of mesne profits from a particular date.and the same shall be considered by the Court below while passing the final decree. In view of the above, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in WAHEEDUDDIN’s case ( 1 supra) has no relevance to the facts of this case. That case arose after the dismissal of the appeal by this Court. That means the final decree proceedings were completed. Therefore, this Court held that such a petition for ascertainment of mesne profits was not maintainable. Such petition is maintainable only between the date of preliminary decree and passing of the final decree and not beyond that. In the instant case, the defendant is, admittedly, a minor represented by natural guardian-mother. Therefore, an interlocutory application of this nature is maintainable in a partition action even though there is no specific prayer for ascertainment of mesne profits or the preliminary decree did not contain any such direction, provided that the final decree is not passed. 10. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. --X—