JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the Order dtd. 10/8/2022 passed in I.A.No.297 of 2020 in I.A.No.295 of 2020 in O.S.No.23 of 2011 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur at Narasaraopet. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. Original Suit No.23 of 2011 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur at Narasaraopet was filed by the petitioners seeking partition of the schedule property and allotment of the shares to the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 and for future profits. The court below, vide judgment dtd. 14/5/2020, passed a preliminary decree directing division of the property into 100 equal shares and granting 30 shares each to petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 on behalf of petitioner No.2, and the remaining 40 shares were granted to respondents 1 to 3. The petitioners filed I.A.No.295 of 2020 in the said suit for passing a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree and also filed I.A.No.297 of 2020 in the final decree petition for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for ascertaining mesne profits. The Court below allowed the said petition, appointing an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain mesne profits from the date of decree and file his report. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present revision is filed. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to the mesne profits from the date of the suit but not from the date of decree. It is his submission that the petitioners sought future profits in the suit and the preliminary decree also contemplates that future profits shall be decided by way of separate application, and that Order XX Rule 12 (1) (c) CPC also contemplates inquiry as to mesne profits from the date of institution of the suit. 5. On this aspect, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decisions. (a) In Chitturi Subbanna v. Kudapa Subbanna and others, . wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 34). "We may now consider the question from another aspect. 5. On this aspect, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decisions. (a) In Chitturi Subbanna v. Kudapa Subbanna and others, . wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 34). "We may now consider the question from another aspect. Rule 12 Order 20 CPC requires the Court to direct, at the time of passing the preliminary decree, an inquiry as to mesne profits from the institution of the suit until the actual delivery of possession of the property to the decree-holder or until the expiration of three years from the date of the decree whichever event first occurs. The Court at the time of the passing of the decree is not in a position to say which of the three events mentioned in clause (c) of sub-rule (1) or Rule 12 will determine the period for which mesne profits would be payable to the decreeholder. Either, therefore, the court has to repeat the various alternatives mentioned in this clause in the judgment and the decree which is to follow the judgment or the judgment and the decree for mesne profits is to be construed in accordance with these provisions. It is preferable to construe it in this way rather than to insist that the court should mechanically repeat in the judgment and decree the various provisions of clause (c). It may sometimes even happen that the enquiry into mesne profits is completed before the expiry of 3 years and that the final decree follows in due course while in fact no possession had been delivered by then. It would not be possible for the judgment-debtor to contend at that time that the decree has not been properly prepared and that it should state that in case possession is not delivered within the period of three years, mesne profits would be payable only for the period of three years from the date of the decree. It does not appear to be desirable that the passing of the final decree be put off till either possession is delivered or a period of three years had expired from the date of the decree." (b) In R.S.Maddanappa (deceased) by his LRs v. Chandramma and another, AIR 1965 SC 1812 . wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 16). "16. It does not appear to be desirable that the passing of the final decree be put off till either possession is delivered or a period of three years had expired from the date of the decree." (b) In R.S.Maddanappa (deceased) by his LRs v. Chandramma and another, AIR 1965 SC 1812 . wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 16). "16. The only other question for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in awarding mesne profits to the first defendant even though she was not transposed as a plaintiff. According to the learned counsel mesne profits cannot be awarded to a successful party to a suit for possession unless a claim was made in respect of them. The learned counsel is right insofar as mesne profits prior to the suit are concerned but insofar as mesne profits subsequent to the date of the institution of the suit, that is, future mesne profits are concerned, the position is governed by Order 20 Rule 12 CPC which is as follows: "(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 rent or mesne profits which have accrued on the property during a period prior to the institution of the suit or directing an inquiry as to such rent or mesne profits; (c) directing an inquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit until: (i) the delivery of possession to the decree-holder, (ii) the relinquishment of possession by the judgment-debtor with notice to the decree-holder through the court, or (iii) the expiration of three years from the date of the decree, whichever event first occurs. (2) Where an inquiry is directed under clause (b) or clause (c) a final decree in respect of the rent or mesne profits shall be passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry."" (c) In Dhondi Vithoba Koli v. Mahadeo Dagdu koli &( others, AIR 1973 Bom 323 . wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 13). (2) Where an inquiry is directed under clause (b) or clause (c) a final decree in respect of the rent or mesne profits shall be passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry."" (c) In Dhondi Vithoba Koli v. Mahadeo Dagdu koli &( others, AIR 1973 Bom 323 . wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 13). "Lastly, the learned counsel has argued that at any rate the plaintiff in this case would not be entitled to mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit in accordance with O. XX, r. 12(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, but he would be entitled to mesne profits only from the date of the sanction of the Collector for partition of the land by metes and bounds. In other words, the argument is that the possession of defendant No. 1 in this case would become wrongful only from the date on which the Collector gives the necessary sanction. I cannot agree. In my opinion, if ultimately in such a case the Collector grants the necessary sanction, such a sanction would obviously relate back to the date of the institution of the suit. Under normal rule, when a decree adjudicates upon the rights between the parties, such an adjudication relates to the date of the institution of the suit, and if the Collector gives sanction to partition any such land by metes and bounds, impediment in the way of actual division by metes and bounds being removed, the adjudication would relate back to the date of the institution of the suit. If, however, the Collector refuses to give sanction for any reason, there would be no partition by metes and bounds. Nevertheless, the plaintiff would be entitled to receive the profits of the laud in respect of his share in it. Where a suit is for recovery of possession and mesne profits, the Court is empowered under O. XX, r. 12 of the Civil Procedure Code to pass a decree for possession of the property and mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit until the delivery of possession to the decree-holder or the relinquishment of possession by the judgment-debtor or the expiration of three years from the date of the decree, whichever event first occurs. In a suit for partition and mesne profits, therefore, if the plaintiff obtains a decree, he becomes entitled to the mesne profits under O. XX, r. 12, Civil Procedure Code. What s. 5(3) of the Act provides is that if the partition is to be effected by metes and bounds, then only the previous sanction should be obtained from the Collector. Once that sanction is granted, the impediment in the way of the plaintiff in obtaining the partition by metes and bounds is removed, with the result that he becomes entitled to the mesne profits under O. XX, r. 12, Civil Procedure Code. In my opinion, therefore, if ultimately the Collector gives sanction to partition this land by metes and bounds, the plaintiff would be entitled to mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit as claimed here till the date of the occurrence of one of the three events mentioned in O. XX, r. 12(1)(c), Civil Procedure Code whichever event first occurs. I, therefore, do not see any substance in this argument either." (d) In a Full Bench decision of the High Court of Patna in Ram Golam Sahu and others v. Chintaman Singh, AIR 1926 Pat 218. wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 4). "The Civil Procedure Code, however, provides by Order XX, rule 12, that where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immoveable property and for rent or mesne profits the court, in addition to granting a decree for possession and mesne profits up to the institution of the suit, may also direct an enquiry as to the mesne profits from the institution of the suit until either delivery of possession to the decree-holder, or relinquishment of possession by the judgment-debtor, or the expiration of three years from the date of the decree, whichever event first occurs. This provision was no doubt inserted in the Code in order to prevent multiplicity of suits, as without it a further suit would be necessary in order to recover the rents and profits for the period during which the decree-holder was kept out of possession after the suit." 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 contended that the Court below rightly directed to ascertain mesne profits from the date of the decree, in terms of the preliminary decree and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 contended that the Court below rightly directed to ascertain mesne profits from the date of the decree, in terms of the preliminary decree and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that a preliminary decree dtd. 14/5/2020 is passed in O.S.No.23 of 2011 filed by the petitioners herein. The decree contemplates inter alia that future profits shall be decided by way of a separate application. As can be seen from the copy of the plaint, the petitioners herein/ plaintiffs sought the prayer of future profits. The decree for future mesne profits or directing inquiry about them is not based on the decision of any controversy between the parties, but is made in the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the Court by the provisions of Order XX Rule 12 (1) (c) CPC. Order XX Rule 12 (1) (c) CPC reads thus: "Rule 12 Decree for possession and mesne profits - (1) Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immoveable 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 mesne profits or directing an inquiry as to such mesne profits; (c) directing an inquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit until- (i) the delivery of possession to the decree-holder, (ii) the relinquishment of possession by the judgmentdebtor with notice to the decree-holder through the Court, or (iii) the expiration of three years from the date of the decree, whichever event first occurs." Even as per the aforesaid provision also, the Court may pass a decree directing an inquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the date of institution of the suit. 8. Order XX Rule 12 (1) (c) was no doubt inserted in the Code in order to prevent multiplicity of suits, as without it, a further suit would be necessary in order to recover the rents and profits for the period during which the decree-holder was kept out of possession after the suit. 8. Order XX Rule 12 (1) (c) was no doubt inserted in the Code in order to prevent multiplicity of suits, as without it, a further suit would be necessary in order to recover the rents and profits for the period during which the decree-holder was kept out of possession after the suit. Order XX Rule 12 CPC enables the Court to pass a decree for both past and future mesne profits but there are important distinctions in the procedure for the enforcement of the two claims. With regard to past mesne profits, the plaintiff has an existing cause of action on the date of the institution of the suit, and as contemplated under Order VII Rules 1, 2 and 7 CPC and Sec. 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff must plead the said cause of action, specifically claim a decree for the past mesne profits, value the claim approximately and pay court fees thereon. With regard to future mesne profits, the plaintiff has no cause of action on the date of the institution of the suit and it is not possible for him to plead the said cause of action or to value it or to pay court fees thereon at the time of the institution of the suit. The Court has the discretionary power to pass a decree directing an inquiry into the future mesne profits and it may grant this general relief, though it is not specifically asked for, in the plaint. Another principle, recognised in Chitturi Subbanna v. Kudapa Subbanna case (1 supra) is that a decree under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code, directing enquiry into mesne profits, howsoever expressed, must be construed to be a decree directing the inquiry in conformity with the requirement of Rule 12(1)(c), so that the decree-holder is not entitled to mesne profits for a period, commencing from the date of the institution of the suit, extending beyond three years from the date of the preliminary decree. 'Future profits' as claimed in the plaint, and granted in the preliminary decree, mean the mesne profits from the date of institution of the suit. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the Court below erred in directing the Advocate Commissioner to ascertain mesne profits from the date of decree. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned Order dtd. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the Court below erred in directing the Advocate Commissioner to ascertain mesne profits from the date of decree. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned Order dtd. 10/8/2022 passed in I.A.No.297 of 2020 in I.A.No.295 of 2020 in O.S.No.23 of 2011 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur at Narasaraopet is modified and the Advocate Commissioner shall ascertain mesne profits from the date of the suit. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.