JUDGMENT : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. 1. By way of this instant order, an application u/sec. 151 CPC for enhancement of mesne profit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents is being decided. 2. The brief facts noticed only with reference to disposal of the present application required to be noted are that the plaintiffs-respondents filed a civil suit for possession and permanent injunction and for damages against the defendants/appellants on 13.10.1995 with the prayer that the respondents be directed to hand over possession of the plot No.1 and 2 to the plaintiffs as mentioned in the plaint and site plan annexed therewith including the constructed house, shops etc. and further prayer was also made to direct the defendants not to make any disturbance in the peaceful possession over the disputed land. The suit was decreed vide order dated 14.02.2006. 3. The appellant filed the instant appeal which has been admitted and it was directed in the meanwhile to the parties to maintain the status quo as it exists today i.e. on 24.03.2006. The cross objection was also filed which too was admitted on 24.08.2009. 4. An application came to be filed by the respondent for vacating the ex-party stay order dated 24.03.2006, alternatively seeking further directions to the appellants to pay mesne profit to the plaintiffs-respondents. This Court on 27.02.2007 observed as under :- "Having considered the rival submissions, this Court directs that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant-defendants shall pay mesne profit to the extent of Rs.1,000/- per month w.e.f. 1st March, 2007 before 15th of succeeding month. In case there is any default in payment of such mesne profit, the stay order dated 24.03.2006 passed in favour of the appellants shall stand vacated and the respondents shall be free to execute the decree. The said mesne profit shall be deposited in the Bank Account No.01000026327 with State Bank of India, Jhunjhunu of the respondent-plaintiffs already available with the appellants. The respondent-plaintiffs will furnish the solvent security to the satisfaction of the trial court along with the certified copy of this order to the effect that in case the appeal succeeds and they are not found entitled to any mesne profit, the money so received under this order by them shall be refunded back to the appellants with interest @9% per annum." Thus, direction was given for paying Rs.1,000/- per month as mesne profit. 5. 5. Another application bearing No.12009/2015 was filed u/Sec. 151 CPC for enhancement of mesne profit looking to the exorbitant hike in the rate of the disputed properties or other immovable. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents that the mesne profit was assessed at Rs.1,000/- per month in the year 2007 and now by passage of time over a decade, the fair market value of the disputed property has enhanced and rents have also gone high and therefore, plaintiffs-respondents is entitled to mesne profit pending appeal. The claim of Rs.1,09,840/-per month has been made to pay the said amount during the pendency of the litigation and in support thereof, a valuation report of one Mr. Ravi Vindal Approved and Registered valuer, has been given on 09.03.2015, assessing the fair market value of the land in question on two basis, one on the basis of DLC Value at Rs.1,46,45,304/-. The said valuer adopted a second basis of computing the fair Market value to the tune of Rs.5,23,18,034/-. Adopting a rate of return @ 9%, on the first basis, the annual rent has been assessed at Rs.13,18,077/- or Rs.1,09,840/- per month and on the second basis the annual rent worked out is Rs.47,08,623/- with monthly rental of Rs.3,92,385/- respectively. 6. Counsel also relied upon the other supporting material of Nagar Parishad, Jhunjhunu of auctioning the property around the disputed area and contended that the plaintiffs-respondent is entitled to mesne profit which has been computed by a registered valuer who is a technical person and further contended that though the appellant has filed an objection and in support of the objection, no evidence has been furnished. Counsel relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar & ors. (1964) AIR (SC) 993 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramniwas v. Tara Chand Rajkumar Lunawat decided on 07.1.2016 wherein there is no bar in moving a second application for enhancement of mesne profit. 7. Per-contra, ld. counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there is no occasion of moving second application for enhancement of mesne profit and this Court being conscious enough to take into consideration the facts and material brought on record by the parties and after due deliberations assessed it at Rs.1,000/- per month and thus contended that second application is not maintainable on same analogy. Counsel also contended that no liberty was sought by the plaintiffs-respondent at the time when first application came up for disposal about filing another/fresh application for enhancement of mesne profit, if occasion arose and once liberty was neither sought nor granted by this Court, the question of entertaining this second application does not arise. 8. Counsel also contended that admittedly it is a property of the Trust and temple is being run for the religious purposes and if the rents are enhanced as claimed now the purpose of the appellant would be frustrated which cannot be allowed at any cost. Counsel relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Asha Ram Sindhi (deceased) through his Legal Heirs & Ors. v. Thakurji Shriji Shri Adinath Swami Brijman Mandir Shri Digambar Jain Mandir Yasodha Mandir 2016 (1) RLW 380 (Raj.) & Fakroodeen (Since Deceased) through his Lrs. Smt. Jaibunisha & Ors. v. Nasirudeen & Ors. Decided on 20.11.2013. Counsel contended that the second application filed on the same principle is not maintainable. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. In my view, after considering the arguments, there is no bar in entertaining the second application for enhancement of mesne profit, if occasion arises. Judicial notice can be taken that values of land have risen sharply over the intervening period of about 10 years and so also rentals have also gone high. Insofar as the rented properties are concerned, there cannot be two opinion that since the price of the land in question has escalated the other side needs to be compensated during the pendency of the appeal which may take another few years for disposal. 11. This Court in the case of Ramniwas v. Tara Chand Rajkumar Lunawat (supra) had also an occasion to consider a second application, and therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that second application for enhancement of mesne profit can always be filed and in this regard, assistance can be taken from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar & ors. (supra) wherein it has been held that if the fresh facts have been brought on record the same can be considered. (supra) wherein it has been held that if the fresh facts have been brought on record the same can be considered. Therefore, I hold that the second application is maintainable particularly taking into consideration that fresh facts have been brought on record and there can be no two opinions that fair market value have gone up and fair rental have also simultaneously gone high, as observed earlier. 12. Counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents has placed on record the valuation report of a registered valuer Mr. Ravi Vindal who is a technical person and has valued the property on two basis; one on the basis of DLC value and another fair market value and also a few instances of auction made by the Nagar Parishand, Jhunjhunu, the same normally is to be taken note of since it is a report of the valuation by a registered valuer who is a technical person and the appellant has not been able to dispel valuation report by filing another valuation report to the contrary or a simple objection without any basis. In my view, the valuation report is reliable guide and can be taken note of. However, it is an admitted fact that it is an old property where a temple is said to be available for religious people. Taking into consideration the above facts in my view, it would be fair and reasonable to assess mesne profit @ Rs.40,000/- per month which in my view, would meet the ends of justice and accordingly the same is assessed @ Rs.40,000/- per month. Since the application has been filed on 12.05.2015 for enhancement of the mesne profit, let the same is allowed from 01.06.2015 onwards and the arrears of the same shall be deposited within a period of three months from today and on month to month basis in the bank account of the plaintiffs-respondents as directed by the Court in its earlier order dated 27.02.2007 and all other terms and conditions as given earlier shall be applicable. The mesne profit/rent as aforesaid is subject to disposal of this appeal. The respondent will also give an undertaking to the Trial Court that in case the appellant succeeds in the instant First Appeal, the respondent shall pay the amount paid by the appellant to the respondent. 13. With these directions/observations, the present application stands disposed of.