JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral):- CM No.16350 CII of 2013 CM is allowed. Exemption as prayed for granted. CM No.16351 CII of 2013 CM is allowed. Date of hearing of the revision is pre-poned for today. CR No. 4110 of 2013 The revision is against the determination of mense profits. The mense profits appears to have been directed for determination from 1992 on a revision filed by the judgment debtors before this Court. The petitioners, who are judgment-debtors, are aggrieved by two facts; one, the executing court has no power to go beyond the decree and when the decree itself does not provide for mense profits, the same cannot be determined by the executing court and two the executing court did not summon the record from the revenue official to assess the actual income from the lands. 2. The direction for determination of mense profits has followed a decree for recovery of possession granted on 5.2.1986, accepting the decree-holders’ contention that the defendants had wrongly usurped possession from the plaintiffs and that, therefore, the possession of the defendants was wrongful. Determination of future profits obtains under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC from the date of the suit till delivery of possession without any limitation of interest. The restriction of claim to past profits alone is limited by the language of Order 20 Rule 12 CPC itself. Consequently, if the court was determining mense profits subsequent to the date of decree and such determination has occurred till the date of possession, it will be untenable to contend that decree does not provide for such a relief. Such a contention is again not possible when the determination came through a direction from this Court in a Civil revision filed by the judgment-debtors when the execution petition was filed in the year 1992 and when the objections of the judgment-debtors were dismissed by the executing court. 3. Even the quantum of mense profits cannot at all times be guided only by what the revenue records say. It has to be determined on the quality of evidence led by the respective parties and and the counsel is unable to give me any specific reason as to how the determination made by the executing court is erroneous and how the summoning of any record from the revenue record could have made a difference. It has to be determined on the quality of evidence led by the respective parties and and the counsel is unable to give me any specific reason as to how the determination made by the executing court is erroneous and how the summoning of any record from the revenue record could have made a difference. I find the revision to be wholly without merits and accordingly dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------