- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 16149 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI S/O. LATE SRI MULCHAND GANDHI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 2. SMT. URMILA GANDHI, W/O LATE SRI. MOOLCHAND GANDHI, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, BOTH ARE C/O MICRO LIGHTS, GHTS NO. 104-6, TIMBER YARD LAYOUT, AVALAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026. REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI AMITH KUMAR GANDHI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PARAS JAIN, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT NARAYANAMMA SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY HER LR'S. SRI V. ANJAN REDDY, SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY HIS LR'S. SRI RAMACHANDRA REDDY, SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY HIS LR'S. 1. SMT. RAJALAKSHMI RAMACHANDRA, W/O LATE SRI RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 2. MS. SRIVIDYA, D/O. LATE SRI RAMCHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 3. MS. SHYLAJA, D/O. LATE SRI RAMCHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 4. MS. SHALINI, D/O. LATE SRI RAMCHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.41, II CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. SUBBAREDDY.K.N, AND SRI. DILIP RAJAN, ADVOCATES) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 04-12-2024 PASSED IN F.D.P. NO. 17 OF 2007 BY OF I.A. U/S 159 OF CPC VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-11), (ANNEXURE-G) & ETC., THIS PETITION IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 13.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CAV ORDER This petition by the petitioners - Decree holders in FDP No.17/2007 is directed against the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the 6th Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the application filed by the petitioners – decree holders under Section 152 CPC was dismissed by the trial court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:- The petitioners instituted the instant final decree proceedings in FDP No.17/2007 which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 31.03.2015 holding that the petitioners are entitled for mesne profits from the respondents and by issuing certain directions. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application under Section 152 CPC seeking correction of an alleged arithmetical / clerical / typographical error in line No.9 of paragraph-36 at page-31 of the aforesaid order dated 31.03.2015 passed in the said FDP No.17/2007 and the said application was accordingly allowed by the trial court vide final order dated 27.01.2016 directing correction of the said mistake only in relation to line No.9 of paragraph-36 at page-31 of the aforesaid order dated 31.03.2015. Thereafter, the petitioners filed one more application under Section 152 CPC seeking rectification of the consequential changes in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 27.01.2016 and the said application was disposed of by directing the registry / office of the trial court to effect consequential changes in the decree by inserting Rs.8/- in the place of Rs.96 paisa while calculating mesne profits. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 2.1 Meanwhile, the original order dated 31.03.2015 passed in FDP No.17/2007 was assailed by the petitioners herein by preferring an appeal in RFA No.743/2015 which was dismissed for non-prosecution / default by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide final order dated 08.11.2016. 2.2 Subsequently, the petitioners filed the instant application dated 03.06.2021 once again invoking Section 152 CPC and requesting calculation of mesne profits at paragraph-38 and operative portion at page-47 of the order dated 31.03.2015 to be amended and rectified pursuant to the order dated 16.08.2017 passed in FDP No.17/2007 vide order dated 31.03.2015 as amended and rectified by order dated 16.08.2017 passed by the trial court. The said application having been opposed by the respondents herein, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by which, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial court committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners by improper and erroneous appreciation of the material on record and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel places reliance upon the following judgments:- i) Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan v. Hari Prasad Bhuyan - (2003) 1 SCC 197; ii) M/s Marshall Sons & Co. Ltd. v. Sahi Oretrans Pvt. Ltd. - AIR 1999 SC 882; iii) Gopal Krishna Pillai v. Meenakshi Ayyar - AIR 1967 SC 155; iv) Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandra Maul - AIR 1966 SC 735; v) Mst. Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed - (1981) 4 SCC 632; vi) Mahant Narayana Dasjee Varu v. TTD - AIR 1965 SC 1231; vii) P.G. Venkataswamy v. Mir Zahid Hussain Saheb - AIR 1973 Mysore 145; viii) Velicheti Audinarayana v. Union of India - 2001 (5) ALD 604; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 ix) Rahul Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi - (2021) 6 SCC 418. 5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to extract the order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the trial court in FDP No.17/2007 as hereunder:- ORDERS The main petition is filed under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC. In the prayer column of the petition it is pleaded as below: “ As per the directions in the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.9078/1996, the Respondent No.1 to 3 may be directed to pay past and future mesne profits until the date of delivery of possession of suit schedule property at the estimated rate of rent as stated in the petition commencing from 23.12.1993 upto the date of delivery of peaceful vacant possession, together with cost of the proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2) In the petition it is stated as below: This petition is filed for mesne profits in respect of the suit schedule property with effect from 23.12.1993 upto the date of delivery of the possession of suit schedule property. As per the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 direction of this court, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.2,65,000/- in this Court in the name of Smt.Narayanamma, the Defendant No.1 herein, towards the balance sale consideration. The suit schedule property is a vacant plot of land with some structures. It is located at Deevatige Ramanahalli village on Mysore Road. It is just adjacent to BHEL Factory. As on the date of filing of the case, the property was within the jurisdiction of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike; just adjacent to the suit schedule property, there is a property of Sri.Sathyanarayana Shetty which bears Municipal Corporation No.326 and on the said property there is a petrol bunk in the name and style of “Aditya Enterprises”. The Municipal Corporation number of the schedule property is 327. The said Sri.Sathyanarayana Shetty has leased his property bearing Municipal Corporation No.326 in the year 2003-04 at monthly rent of Rs.6/- per sq.feet with advance of 20 month rentals. The transferee pendente lite of the suit schedule property has constructed building during the pendency of the suit and said building comprises of 3 floors; 2nd floor of the said premises has been leased out to ‘New India Assurance Company’ at monthly rental of Rs.21/- per sq.feet, another portion of the suit schedule property has been let out to an Automobile dealer by name ‘Kalyani Motors’ at monthly rent of Rs.26/- per sq.feet. It is clear that the area wherein the suit - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 schedule property is located has developed as on today and it is a prime location as per monthly rent of Rs.26/- per sq.feet during the year 2006; Rs.21/- per sq. feet during the year 2005; Rs.6/- per sq. feet during the year 2003-04. Taking into consideration that monthly rent of Rs.26/- and Rs.21/- is being paid for constructed portion and not for vacant land, the estimated rents for the vacant plot of land can be reasonably estimated at 50% of Rs.26/- and Rs.21/- respectively for the relevant years. During late 90’s, many industries have come and there is great demand for vacant plot of land to use as storage yard and godown and such other business activities. The total area of the suit schedule property owned by the petitioner is 1963 sq.yards, namely 17,172 sq. feet. During the year 1993, the petitioner would have earned an estimated rent of 0.25 paisa per sq.feet per month in respect of the suit schedule property. Thus, the monthly rent shall be Rs.4,293/- per month. During the year 1996 onwards, industrial activities in and around the schedule property has multiplied, as the Ring Road has joined just few meters away from the suit schedule property, coming from Jayanagar and the rate of rent per sq.feet during 1996 is estimated at 0.50 paisa per sq.feet and the estimated monthly rent shall be Rs.8,586/- per month. During the year 1998, industrial activities further mushroomed near the suit schedule property and the rate of rent per - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 sq.feet during 1998 is estimated at Rs.1/- per sq.feet and the estimated monthly rent shall be Rs.17,172/- per month. During the year 2000, industrial activities further mushroomed near the suit schedule property and the rate of rent per sq.feet during 2001 is estimated at Rs.2/- per sq. feet and the estimated monthly rent shall be Rs.34,344/- per month. During the year 2001 to 2003, industrial activities further mushroomed near the suit schedule property and the rate of rent per sq.feet during 2002 is estimated at Rs.3/- per sq.feet and estimated monthly rent shall be Rs.51,516/- per month. During the year 2004, the adjacent property of Sri.Sathyanarayan Shetty which bears Municipal Corporation No.326, has been leased at the rate of Rs.6/- per Sq. feet and as such the estimated rent for the year 2004 is estimated at Rs.6/- per sq. feet and estimated monthly rent shall be Rs.1,03,032/- per month. During the year 2005, the portion of the suit schedule property has been leased by the transferee pendente lite, he has leased 2nd floor portion of the building at monthly rent of Rs.21/- per sq. feet. As such, as because of the suit schedule property is not a building, but vacant land, 50% of such rent is adopted for the land and accordingly the estimated monthly rent shall be Rs.10-50 per sq. feet and monthly rent shall be Rs.1,80,306/- per sq. feet. During the year 2006, the portion of the schedule property has been leased by the transferee - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 pendente lite at monthly rent of Rs.26/- per sq. feet. As because the schedule property is not building, but the land 50% of such rent is adopted for the land and accordingly the estimated monthly rent shall be Rs.13/- per sq. feet and monthly rent shall be Rs.2,23,236/- per sq. feet. For the year 2007, the rent may be estimated at Rs.13/- per sq. feet plus for every additional year after 2007, the rate of rent may be enhanced by 10% of the rent. Thus, the estimated rent, if possession is not delivered by 2007, for the year 2008, shall be Rs.14-30; and for the year 2009 shall be Rs.15-73; the mesne profits in respect of the suit schedule property for the years commencing from 23.12.1993 to 2007 may be estimated as per the chart mentioned in the petition. Therefore, it is prayed to pass the decree directing to pay past and future interest against Defendants No.1 to 3, until the date of delivery of the possession of the suit schedule property at the estimated rate of rents. 2) The Respondent No.1 appeared through the advocate, but has not chosen to file objections to main petition. 3) The Respondent No.3 has filed objection to this petition, wherein, it is contended as below:- That there exists no such property as stated in the decree schedule and this Respondent has never been in possession of any such property. The plaintiff had claimed that this Respondent is in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 possession and therefore has to be directed to deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property and to pay mesne profits. This defendant categorically stated that, he is not in possession of any property or a portion therein, which is described in the schedule to the plaint, as well as in the decree. It is relevant to state that, by virtue of a partition, this defendant has been allotted with the property measuring 54,450 sq. feet, bounded on the East by remaining portion of the property bearing No.327 allotted to the share of Sri.Anjanreddy; West by remaining land of Sri.Lingaiah’s property; North by Remco factory premises and South by Bangalore- Mysore Road. Therefore, this defendant is claiming altogether different property by virtue of the partition and there exists no such property as claimed by the petitioner in Corporation No.327 with the boundaries indicated in the decree. Since, this Respondent was never in possession of property claimed by the petitioner, question of claiming mesne profits does not arise. The decree granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the schedule property would not affect the entitlement of this defendant in respect of the property allotted to his share. Therefore, the question of maintaining the proceedings for mesne profits will not arise. There is no such property as described in the decree schedule and at any rate, his property is entirely distinct and different from the property described in - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 the plaint schedule and since he is not in possession of such property, the question of granting mesne profits does not arise. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the final decree proceedings, so far as this Respondent is concerned. 4) In order to prove the case, the petitioners have got examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.18. Respondent No.1 has not chosen to lead evidence. Respondent No.3 got examined himself as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R.6. 5) Heard the advocate for the Decree Holders and advocate for Judgment Debtors No.1 and 3. Perused the written arguments/synopsis filed by the parties. I have perused the records. The advocates for the Decree Holders and Judgment Debtors No.1 & 3 have relied on certain decisions. I have gone through the said decisions. I do follow the principles of law laid down therein. I do apply the principles of law laid down in the said decisions whenever the facts of this case do warrant. 6) The points that arises for consideration of this court are as below : 1) Whether the present petition is maintainable one against the Defendant No.3? 2) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for mesne profits from 23.12.1993 upto the date of delivery of peaceful vacant possession of the decreetal property? - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 3) What would be the period for which the Petitioners are entitled for mesne profits in this case? 4) What is the quantum of mesne profits for which the Petitioners are entitled in this case? 5) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs sought for? 6) What order? 7) My answer to the above points are :- Point No.1 – In the Affirmative; Point No.2 – Partly in affirmative; Point No.3 – For the period from 23.12.1993 to 23.07.2013 Point No.4 – a) Rs.1,03,020/- for the period from 23.12.1993 to 22.12.1998; b) Rs.1,08,180/- for the period from 23.12.1998 to 22.12.2003; c) Rs.1,13,580/-for the period from 23.12.2003 to 22.12.2008; d) Rs.1,14,565/- for the period from 23.12.2008 to 23.07.2013; Point No.5 – Partly in affirmative. Point No.6 – As per final order, for the following :- R E A S O N S 7) Points No.1 to 5:- The facts and circumstances to be considered to answer these points are inter- connected to one another, hence, I would like to answer all these points simultaneously. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 8) Basing on the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.9078/1996 the original plaintiffs/petitioners have filed the main petition to determine the past and future mesne profits. The contents of the preliminary decree are as below: ” It is ordered and decreed that the Defendants No.1 to 3 shall deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. The defendants No.1 to 3 shall be liable to pay the mesne profits for the period from three years prior to filing of the suit and they are liable to pay future mesne profits from the period from the date of suit until actual delivery of possession. “ 9) Perusal of the prayer made in the petition shows that the petitioners have sought future mesne profits from the date of suit until actual delivery of possession. As noted above, the mandate of the decree is to the effect that, the petitioners are entitled to past and future mesne profits from the date of suit until the actual delivery of possession. The fact remains that, no record is produced to the effect that the decreetal property is delivered to the Decree Holders. As such, as per the records, as on this date, there is no delivery of the suit schedule property/decreetal property to the Decree Holders/present Petitioners. 10) In this regard, this court opining that it is not proper to bifurcate the reliefs prayed in the main petition and to pass order in relation to past mesne profits and future mesne profits and that it is not - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 proper to pass orders on merits regarding future mesne profits, wherein, the dictum of the preliminary decree is to ‘ascertain the mesne profits until actual delivery of possession’, so till delivery of possession of the decreetal property to the decree holders in accordance with the law, it is not possible to ascertain the quantum of future mesne profits as per the above said order, as because, the date of delivery of possession of suit schedule property is not on record, as such, without expressing anything on merits of the case, keeping open all the grounds raised by the respective parties in this case, has passed order on 31.10.2014 keeping pending FDP.No.17/2007 for hearing to the effect that “Without expressing anything on merits of the case, keeping open all the grounds raised by the respective parties in this case for consideration FDP.No.17/2007 is kept pending for hearing till report of the date of actual delivery of possession of the suit schedule property, to the Decree Holders in accordance with the Law”. Later, on 17.01.2015, the Decree Holders have filed application to pass final decree in respect of the rent/mesne profits in accordance with the result of inquiry, which is complete, without waiting for delivery of possession of the property to the Decree Holders. In that regard, this court has passed considered order on merits on 22.01.2015 to the effect that “(1) The application filed by the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 Decree Holders under Order XX Rule 12 Read with Section 151 CPC., dated 17.01.2015; is hereby allowed. (2) It is hereby considered that, the Decree Holders have prayed to pass final decree in respect of rent/mesne profits in accordance with the result of enquiry, for the period from three years prior to filing of the suit and in respect of future mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit until expiration of three years from the date of decree.” 11) The records do not show that the order of this court dated 22.01.2015 is set aside in accordance with the law. The contention of the advocate for Judgment Debtor No.1 is that, as because this court has opined that it is proper to keep pending FDP No.17/2007 as per the order dated 31.10.2014, passing of orders on main petition does not arise. At the cost of repetition I note that as because order of this court dated 22.01.2015 is in force and it is not set aside in accordance with the law, now as per the said order, this court has decided to dispose off the main petition. So, the technical condition raised by the advocate for the Judgment Debtor No.1 is not tenable one in the eye of law. Accordingly, now the present petition is being disposed off on merits on main petition itself. 12) The mesne profits are to be determined in respect of the decreetal property mentioned in the preliminary decree. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 On going through the marked documents and keeping in mind the facts elicited in the oral evidence of the parties in this case, I note the earlier proceedings and facts which are not much in dispute, which resulted in filing of this petition. (a) Earlier Sy.No.15/2 of Dewatige Ramanahalli Village, Bangalore- Mysore Road, Bangalore, was belonging to one Sri.Lingaiah. The present defendant No.1 by name Smt.Narayanamma purchased property bearing Municipal No.327 and 328 (Old Sy.No.15/2) measuring 01 Acre in the year 1960, under a Sale deed dated 17.03.1960. (b) The sale deed shows that property meaasuing 1963 sq. yard which is part of Sy.No.15/2, Municipal No.327 situated at Dewatige Ramanahalli Village is purchased from said Smt.Narayanamma under regular registered Sale Deed dated 13.05.1986. On the same day i.e. on 13.05.1986 the present Petitioners have purchased portion of Municipal No.327, Sy.No.15/2 situated at Dewatige Ramanahalli Village measuring 1908 square yards. In that - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 regard, Ex.P.3, 4, 10 and 11 are sale deeds which are not disputed documents in this case at this stage of proceedings. (c) Thereafter, the said Smt.Narayanamma/defendant No.1 filed suit for injunction in O.S.No.986/1987 before the competent court against the present Petitioners. Ex.P.9 is the plaint copy in O.S.No.986/1987 in relation to the property situated in corporation No 327 of Devatige Ramanahalli, measuring in all 3671 sq.yards with certain boundaries mentioned therein. So also, the present Petitioners filed suit for possession in O.S.No.9078/1996 against the present defendants No.1 to 3 on the strength of the sale deed 13.05.1986 noted above. In that regard, Ex.P1 Written Statement of defendant No.3 in O.S.No.9078/1996, Ex.P2 counter claim filed in O.S.No.9078/1996 are produced. (d) The records are to the effect that, all these suits are clubbed and common judgment is passed, wherein, O.S.No.986/87 is dismissed and O.S.No.9077/96 and O.S.No.9078/96 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 are decreed, accordingly. The records show that, the aggrieved party Smt.Narayanamma preferred RFA.No.662/2007 against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.986/1987, RFA.No.661/2007 against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.9078/96 and RFA.No.663/2007 against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.9077/96. The records are to the effect that, all these regular appeals are dismissed on merits on 22.10.2009. The submission of the Decree Holders that, Special Leave Petition preferred by Smt.Narayanamma against the order passed in RFA.661/2007 to RFA.No.663/2007 is also dismissed and the decree is confirmed, is not much under challenge. The records are to the effect that the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 22-10-2009 is challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.(s) 16349-16351/2010 and the same is dismissed on 23-7-2010. As such on over all submissions of the parties, it is sufficient to note that the decree - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 passed in O.S.No.9077/96 and O.S.No.9078/96 have attained their finality in the eye of law. Obviously, the decree passed in O.S.No.9078/96 is under consideration in this case. (e) The fact that, respondent No. 2 is the husband of respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 is the son of respondent No.1 is admitted. The records show that, during the pendency of the litigation between the Petitioners and respondents partition is effected in between respondents No.1 to 3 on 25.03.1991 in relation to the property, which is the subject matter of sale deeds at Ex.P.3,4,10 and 11. In that regard, Ex.R.2 Partition Deed is produced. 13) In the back ground of these facts and earlier proceedings, the main contention of the Respondent No.3 is to the effect that, the matter requires to be adjudicated is, as to whether the property which was subject matter of O.S.No.986/1987 and decreetal property is the same property and the apparently both properties are entirely different, the decree granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the schedule property would not affect the entitlement of this defendant in respect of the property allotted to - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 his share in partition; therefore, the question of maintaining the proceedings for mesne profits will not arise, there exists no such property as stated in the decree schedule and this respondent has never been in possession of any such property. On going through this written contentions of the Respondents No.1 and 3, it can be noted that, the existence and identification of the decreetal property is disputed by them. In this context, the Petitioners have got examined PW-1 who has deposed on the strength of Ex.P.16, Power of Attorney and produced and got marked Ex.P.9, amended plaint copy in O.S.No.986/1987, Ex.P.1, copy of the written statement filed by the defendant No.3 (the present respondent No.3) in O.S.No.9078/1996 and Ex.P.2, copy of the counter claim filed by the defendant No.1 (the present respondent No.1) in O.S.No.9078/1996 and Ex.P.8 affidavit of the present respondent No.3. In this context, RW.1 deposed in detail and he got marked the written statement of defendant No.3 and 4 (the present Petitioners) in O.S.No.986/1987 at Ex.R.1, deed of partition at Ex.R2, the certified copy of the order passed by the Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP dated 29.11.2010, certified copy of the award passed by Special Land Acquisition officer, KIDB at Ex.R4, the sketch prepared as per the partition deed at Ex.R.5 and copy of P.T. sheet as per Ex.R.6. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 14) The oral evidence of the parties in this case rotated around the existence, identification and description of the decreetal property. His specific contention is that, the property allotted to his share in the partition is different from the decreetal property and he is not in actual wrongful possession of the alleged decreetal property. The evidence of RW-1 is in detail disputing the existence, identification and description of the decreetal property and his liability to pay the means profits. However, the respondent No 1 has not chosen to enter the witness box to deny the case made out by the petitioners in this case. The contents of these documents show that, at no point of time the parties have disputed the existence, description and identification of decreetal property in original suits. Once again, it is worth to note that the preliminary decree has attained finality by passing of the order by the Hon’ble Supreme court as noted above. Exs.P.3, P.4, P.10 and P.11 are the copy of the sale deeds dated 13.05.1986. The description of the schedule property mentioned in the sale deed Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.10 and the description mentioned in the decree are one and the same. As because, the defendants have not disputed the description of the plaint schedule property in the original proceedings, wherein, the preliminary decree came to be passed against the - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 present respondents No.1 to 3 and as because it has attained finality in the eye of law, in the opinion of this court, now in this proceedings the present respondents who are the original defendants in the original suit are not permitted to take up such defense. As such, in the opinion of this court, once again adjudication in respect of existence, description and identification of the decreetal property in this proceedings is out of the purview of the adjudication/enquiry contemplated under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC. As such, in the opinion of this court, the arguments advanced in relation to the existence, description and identification of the decreetal property in these proceedings is out of the scope of the enquiry. 15) At this stage, I note that the records show that Execution No.459/2007 is pending before this court, wherein, the decree holders have filed application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC., against the objectors and it is pending for enquiry and consideration before this court, wherein, the Judgment Debtors and objectors have disputed the existence, the description and identification of the decreetal schedule property. But, now in this case adjudication regarding existence, the description and identification of the decreetal schedule property is out of the scope of the case. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 16) The arguments advanced by the leaned advocate for the contesting respondent No.3 placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1214 (Lucy Kochuvareed V/s. P. Mariappa Gounder) and the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, reported in 1982 Orissa Page No.86 (Rama Subudhi & others V/s. Bhagirathi & others) – is to the effect that, the preliminary decree for the purpose of enquiry into mesne profits by itself is nowhere conclusive in any of the aspects which requires to be considered for the purpose of determination and fixation of quantum, as also, the liability of mesne profits; there is no finding about the possession of the portion of the property in the suit and therefore it is kept open to be decided in the enquiry into mesne profits which is also the mandate under Order XX Rule 12(2) of CPC, the actual physical and wrongful possession is sine- quanoni for the claim of mesne profits, since the same has not been established either by pleadings or by proof, an enquiry into mesne profits cannot be terminated in a final decree for awarding mesne profits in favour of the Petitioners or against the 3rd respondent, no finding has been recorded at the stage of preliminary enquiry relating to the actual possession of the property recovered under the decree, in the present petition also, it is not asserted that 3rd Respondent is in wrongful possession of the - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 decree in schedule property, as such, the basic requirements to claim mesne profits is absent, therefore, no mesne profits can be awarded against 3rd respondent, in the absence of pleading and evidence that the 3rd respondent is in actual wrongful possession of the decreetal property and that the very essence of claim for mesne profits, the petition itself is not maintainable one. The submission of the advocate for the decree holders is that, as because the preliminary decree has attained its finality, now, the said contentions raised by the respondent No.3 are not tenable one. 17) No doubt, the law mandates that the wrongful possession is sine-qua-non for the claim of mesne profits. It is material to note that, the preliminary decree is against the present Respondents No.1 to 3. The preliminary decree is clear to the effect that there is order against defendants No.1 to 3 to handover the actual possession of the suit schedule property to the Petitioners. In this context, I place reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme court reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2270, wherein, it is held to the effect that “the possession of a person against whom a decree for possession has been passed is in wrongful possession”. Even though the facts and circumstances involved in the said case and the present case are different, but the fact remain that the present respondents have suffered preliminary - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 decree against them, hence, in the eye of law they are in wrongful possession in the petition schedule property. As because the preliminary decree is clear that defendants No.1 to 3 shall handover the actual possession of the schedule property to the plaintiffs and there shall be enquiry regarding mesne profits, so, in the opinion of this court, the contention raised by the respondent No.3 that the fact regarding who is in actual and wrongful possession of the schedule property is to be determined in this case and such enquiry is kept open, is not tenable one in the eye of law. 18) The defendant No.3 has disputed the liability to pay mesne profits contending that as because in the partition, the property allotted to his share is different and in no way he is concerned to the alleged decreetal property, more over, the existence, identification of the decreetal property itself is not established and there is no evidence to show that he is in actual wrongful possession of the alleged decreetal property, he is not liable to pay the mesne profits. The advocate for the decree holders placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1214 noted above and contended that, all the three defendants No.1 to 3 are liable to pay the mesne profits to the Petitioners which would be the result of the enquiry in this case. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 Once again, I note that the preliminary decree is against respondents No.1 to 3 and there is clear mandate in the preliminary decree that, respondents No.1 to 3 are liable to handover the possession of the decreetal property to the Petitioners and defendants No.1 to 3 are liable to pay mesne profits to the Petitioners. Under these circumstances, the adjudication regarding liability of respondents No.3 to pay the mesne profits is unwarranted and the law does not permit him to raise such contention in this case, wherein, the preliminary decree has attained the stage of finality and moreover, he has not challenged the preliminary decree at the initial stage in his individual capacity. So, relying on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of this court, as because in the eye of law the defendants No.1 to 3 are in wrongful possession of the decreetal property, their liability to pay mesne profits is co-extensive one, hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Petitioners. 19) Now, the point that remains for appreciation would be the quantum of mesne profits. In this context, I note Order XX Rule 12 CPC., which reads as below : “ 12. Decree for possession and mesne profits:- (1)Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 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 the 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 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.” In view of Order XX Rule 12 CPC., and in the light of the principles laid down in the above said decision, in view of the Karnataka Amendment to Rule 12(3) of Order XX Rule 12 CPC., it is evident that the law empowers this court to hold an enquiry for the mesne profits for the period of three years prior to the date of institution of the suit until expiration of three years from the date of decree. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 20) At first, it is proper to fix the period for which the Petitioners are entitled for mesne profits. I would like to place reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court (Chituri Subbanna V/s Kudapa Subbanna), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court analyzing Order XX Rule 12 of CPC., is pleased to hold that : “a decree under Rule 12 order 20 CPC directing enquiry into the mesne profits, however expressed, must be construed to be a decree directing the enquiry into mesne profits in conformity with the requirements of Rule 12(1)(C) of order 20 and that the decree holder in this case cannot get mesne profits for the period subsequent to March 27 1941 when the 3 years period from the date of the High Court decree, expired. In the present case in hand as such it is evident that even though the preliminary decree mandates that the Petitioner is entitled for ‘future mesne profits from the period from the date of suit until actual delivery of possession’ but in view of the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the alleged mesne profits to be ascertained would be restricted to three years period from the date of decree”. In the backdrop of these principles of law and the principles of law laid down in the decision relied on by the Petitioners reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1214 [Lucy Kochuvareed Vs, P.Mariappa Gounder and others), it is evident that the - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 Petitioners are entitled for the mesne profits for the period of three years prior to the date of institution of the suit until expiration of three years from the date of decree. 21) Now, the facts of the case are to be appreciated to ascertain the period for which mesne profits are to be calculated as because this court found that Petitioners are entitled for the mesne profits. 22) The records show that the date of preliminary decree in this case is dated 21.12.2006. As per the preliminary decree the defendants No.1 to 3 shall be liable to pay the mesne profits for the period of 3 years prior to filing of this suit. As per the records, this suit was filed on 23.12.1996. As such, the period for computation of past mesne profits would be from 23.12.1993 to 23.12.1996. No doubt, the petitioners have sought mesne profits for the period from 23.12.1993 to 2007. But the fact remained that, the records show that the judgment and decree in OS.No.9078/1996 is challenged before the Hon’ble High Court in RFA.No.661/2007 to 663/2007 and the Hon’ble High court is pleased to pass the orders on 22-10-2009, wherein, the judgment and decree in OS.No.9078/1996 is confirmed. The records are to the effect that, the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 22-10-2009 is challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.(s) 16349- 16351/2010 and the same is dismissed on 23-7- - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 2010. At this juncture, I note that the petitioners or the respondents have not chosen to produce the copy of the order in RFA.No.661/2007 to 663/2007 and the copy of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP. But, on 3-7-2014 the petitioners have filed application to pre- pone the case and in the accompanying affidavit of the party, the particulars of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court are mentioned. There are no materials on record to show that these particulars stated by the petitioners are wrong. Hence, in the opinion of this court, the said particulars may be relied upon. On the basis of these facts, it is evident that the preliminary decree passed in OS.No.9078/1996 has reached its finality on passing of the order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 23- 7-2010. In this context, I place reliance on the decision relied on by the advocate for the petitioner rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1214 [Lucy Kochuvareed Vs, P.Mariappa Gounder and others], wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court is pleased to analyse the ambit of Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC., and held that the meaning of “Three years from the date of the decree” mentioned in Order 20 Rule 12(1)(c) is the period to be counted from the date of decree finally passed. So, in the present case in hand, on passing of the order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the preliminary decree in - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 OS.No.9078/1996 has reached its finality on 23-7- 2010. So, if the period of three years is computed as contemplated under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC., then, the period of future mesne profits would be in between 23.12.1996 to 23-7-2013. Even though the preliminary decree stipulates that the decree holders are entitled for future mesne profits for the period from the date of the suit until actual delivery of possession, but, by following the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted above, it is clear that, the Petitioners are not entitled for mesne profits until actual delivery of the possession, but the preliminary decree to be construed that mesne profits are granted up to three years from the date of the decree. In the opinion of this court, in the light of Order XX Rule 12 of CPC., and in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted above, the assertion of the Decree Holders that they are entitled for mesne profits until delivery of possession of the suit property is not tenable in the eye of law. So, in view of the order passed by this court dated 17.01.2015, for the reasons noted above, it is hereby concluded that the past mesne profits from 23.12.1993 to 23.12.1996 and the future mesne profits from 23.12.1996 to 23- 7-2013 are to be calculated. 23) At this stage, the criteria to determine mesne profits are to be appreciated. In this context, I place - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 reliance on the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the decision reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1405, wherein it is held that : “ Normally a person in wrongful possession of immovable property has to pay compensation computed on the basis of profits he actually received or with ordinary diligence might have received one. The normal measure is, therefore, the value of the user of land to the person in wrongful possession. An assessment of computation at a certain percentage of what the court regards as the fair value of the property will be one based, not on the value of the user but on an estimated return on the value of the property and cannot be sustained” In the light of these principles, I note the well settled principles that the assessment of mesne profit is a matter of the exercise of judicial discretion in each case. So, the yardstick to ascertain the mesne profits would be that, prima facie it is fair to infer that a person in possession of land may by ordinary diligence get rent for it according to the prevailing rates for such land and that the true owner wrongfully dispossessed has been a looser by that amount. So, in the opinion of this court, in order to ascertain the mesne profits from 23.12.1993 to 23.07.2013, the nature of the schedule property, the location of the schedule property, the extent of the schedule property, the nature of the use of the schedule property, the yield or income or rent from - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 the suit schedule property are the prime matters to the appreciated in detail. 24) However, the burden is on the petitioners to prove the nature of the income or profit of the decreetal property. Petitioners have specifically pleaded the nature of income of the decreetal property and nature of use of the decreetal property and surrounding area at the relevant point of time. PW.1 in detail deposed and asserted regarding the mesne profits, for which, the Petitioners are entitled and also mentioned a chart in his evidence. Except bare denial of the case of the Petitioners, the respondents have not pleaded specifically the income or the profit or the use of the decreetal property for the relevant period noted above. 25) Even though, the Petitioners have asserted that the estimated rent of the decreetal property at the relevant time in between 1993 to 2007 would be as mentioned in the chart, but, it is the duty of this court to determine and fix the reasonable and fair mesne profits with the yardstick that, what would be the rate of rent of the decreetal property, suppose, it would have had been fetched rent, if it was put to use in the ordinary course of events, in the back ground of prevailing rates in the area, wherein, the decreetal property is situated. 26) There is no direct evidence to prove the income or profit of the decreetal property for the period from - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 23.12.1993 to 23.07.2013. So, the potentiality of the decreetal property to fetch rent, if it would have had been put into use is to be ascertained for the period from 23.12.1993 to 23.07.2013. The net result is the mesne profit in this case would be the income or the profit which the petitioners would have had derived out of the reasonable use of the decreetal property under the given circumstances, if they would be in possession of the decreetal property from 23.12.1993 to 23.07.2013. 27) At first, I would like to note the location of the suit schedule property. In this context, I note the description of the suit schedule property as mentioned in the preliminary decree which is as below:- “ Portion of the property bearing Municipal No.327 measuring on the East by 78 + 52 ft., West by : 100 ft., North by : 71 ft., and South by : 276 ft., or in all 1,908 sq.yards (1595.336 Sq.meters), bounded on the : East by : Bangalore-Mysore Road West by : BHEL Factory properties North by : Portion retained by the Vendor out of Corporation No.327 and 328 where M/s.Navalco Limited is running a Factory, and South by : Property belonging to heirs of Lingaiah” The documents marked at Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.10 the sale deeds describe that the said suit schedule property is located by the side of Bangalore-Mysore - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 Road at Devatigeramanahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluka. 28) As per the preliminary decree, the total extent of suit schedule property is 1908 sq. yards (1595.366 sq. meters). In the opinion of this court, for the sake of convenience, for calculation purpose, it is proper to convert this measurement into square feets. As per the calculation, one yard is equal to 3 feet; so, one Square yard is equal to 9 sq. feet. So, the total extent of decreetal schedule property is 17172 sq. feet. 29) As per the pleading and evidence of Petitioners, the suit schedule property is vacant plot of land with some structures. The pleadings and evidence of Petitioners show that they are claiming estimated rate of rent construing that decreetal property is vacant land. The suit schedule property is described with Municipal No.327. Even though, the respondents have challenged the existence of decreetal property, but it is not much in dispute that Municipal No.327 is located within the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The contents of the Exs.P.4 and P.10, sale deeds show that the nature of the land is that of non-agricultural use. The contents of sale deed show that BHEL factory properties are located by the side of the schedule property mentioned in the sale deed and M/s. Novalco Limited was running a factory by the side of - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 schedule property mentioned in the sale deed. The evidence on record show that Hindustan Petroleum was running bunk in the schedule property mentioned in the sale deed. The RW.1 has shown his ignorance to the asserted fact by the Petitioners that the decreetal property is situated in the area wherein commercial and industrial activity were being carried out. So, basing on these material facts, it can be concluded that, the nature of the land was for the purpose of non-agricultural use and it had potentiality of using it for commercial use, fetching rental income. 30) Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, in the opinion of this court, taking into note of growth of city in commercial and industrial activity, it is just and proper to determine the mesne profits by slab wise for the period from 23.12.1993 to 22.12.1998; and from 23.12.1998 to 22.12.2003; and from 23.12.2003 to 22.12.2008 and from 23.12.2008 to 23.07.2013. 31) As noted above, except the contents of the sale deed, there is no other document to establish what was the yield or income or rent from the suit schedule property. The evidence also does not help to note that, what was the nature of the use of the suit schedule property by Respondent No.1 at the time of sale deed in the year 1986. So, there is no cogent evidence on record to establish what was the - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 yield or income or rent from the decreetal schedule property prior to 23.12.1993 or in between 23.12.1993 to 23.12.1996. The oral and documentary evidence is not helpful to establish cogently what was the yield or income or rent from the decreetal schedule property from 23.12.1993 to 23.07.2013. 32) In this context, the Petitioners are very much relying on Ex.P.17, the certified copy of the lease deed dated 03.03.2005. This document is marked in evidence without much objection, hence, this document is admissible one in evidence. No doubt, the Defendants contend that this document is created one, but, no cogent materials are placed on record to disbelieve the genuineness and authenticity of this document. No doubt, the author of this document is not examined. However, the contents of this document are subject to scrutiny in this case in the background of prevailing circumstances at the relevant point of time. In the opinion of this court, this document need not be discarded on the ground that the parties to this agreement are not examined in this case, as because, it is registered document. The contents of the said document show that, it is the lease deed in between one Mr.V.Sathyanaranaryan Shetty and M/s.Shell India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., in respect of the schedule - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 property located in Municipal No.326. The documentary evidence and the oral evidence on record is sufficient to note that Municipal No.326 is located by the side of Municipal No.327. The contents of this document show that the lessee has taken the said schedule premises for rent as mentioned in Annexure-8 to the document. The terms of this agreement show that the total lease is for the period of 21 years and as per the terms agreed between the parties, the rent for first 4 years from commencement of lease is to the tune of Rs.3,31,056/-, the total lease rent for 4 years is to the tune of Rs.1,58,90,688/-. The terms provide escalation for every 4 years for the tune of 13%. Basing on this document, the submission of the decree holders is that, as because the suit schedule property is vacant land, the yield of the suit schedule property may be considered as 0.25 paisa per sq. feet, in the year 1993 and the monthly rent be estimated at Rs.4293/- per month and yearly rent be estimated at Rs.1073/- and taking into consideration that there was growth in industrial activities around the schedule property, the rent of schedule property be estimated at 50 paisa per sq. feet in the year 1996 and escalation is sought in that regard and the decree holder has provided a chart in his examination in chief in detail. Except bare denial, the defendant No.3 who is the contesting party has not chosen to place on record any other material to - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 counter the assertion of the decree holders in this regard. In the eye of law, the defendants would be in wrongful possession of the suit schedule property and the defendants have not placed on record any material on record to show that suit schedule property was not worth yielding any income or it was not fit for use. Under these circumstances, at the same time, the decree holders on whom the burden is casted to prove the mesne profits have also not produced concrete evidence to ascertain the mesne profits of the suit schedule property. Under these circumstance, in the opinion of this court, as because Ex.P.17 lease deed is marked without any objection and as because, it is certified copy, the said document may be considered to determine the potentiality of the suit schedule property which is located by the side of Municipal No.326 which is the schedule property under Ex.P.17. But, it is to be kept in mind that the terms of agreement are entered between the lesser and lessee according to their wish and prevailing necessity between them and whatever are the terms of the agreement, that cannot be ipso facto would be applied to the suit schedule property. But, the rates of rent mentioned in the said document may help this court to note what would be the approximate prevailing rental value of the suit schedule property in the year 2005. Obviously, the terms of Ex.P.17 show that it was intending to use for commercial - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 purpose. Obviously, the fact that the rental value of the property would be agreed by the lessee on the basis of the business turn over of the lessee and the intention of the lessee to put into use and the estimated profit cannot be ignored. 33) The Petitioners are very much placing reliance on Ex.P.18, the rental agreement entered into between M/s. Indocem House Joint property and the New India Assurance Company Limited, dated 15.09.2005 in respect of the property bearing Municipal No.327/5. This document is disputed as created one. As per this documents the 2nd floor of the building is given to the lessee for the rental amount of Rs.44,500/-per month and monthly maintains charges of Rs.5,000/-. Once again, I note that this rental agreement is in respect of premises situated in building and the terms and conditions would be as per the will and wish and necessity of the parties, hence, ipso facto the terms and conditions are not made applicable to evaluate the rental value of the decreetal property. As because, this document is in relation to constructed building, the rate of rent mentioned in this document ipso facto cannot be applied to the vacant site. But, however, the said document is helpful to note that the decreetal property is in the area wherein office are located and commercial activity are going on. So, except Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.18 there are no documentary evidence on record to establish the - 42 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 rental value of the vacant site in the area, wherein, the decreetal property is located. Exs.P.13 to P. 15, photographs are not much disputed. RW.1 has admitted that these are the photographs of the properties located in Municipal No.327, but, except the fact that there are buildings in Municipal No.327 these photographs will not highlight the rate of rent for the vacant site in that area. 34) The contents of Exs.P.12 and Ex.R.3, sketch and Ex.R.6 show that some portion of the Municipal No.327 was acquired for Metro in the year 2007. Once again, I note that the escalation agreed between the parties as per Ex.P.17 is as per their will and wish in the background of their need. The extent of the area given on lease basis as per Ex.P.17 is 41,382 sq. feet. Taking into note the extent of the property given on rental basis is to the tune of 41,382 sq. feet and monthly rent is to the tune of Rs.3,31,056/-, the calculation would be that the rental value per sq. feet, is 96 paisa in the year 2005. Once again, I note that this figure is the outcome of the will and wish of the parties to the agreement. So, keeping in mind all these facts and circumstances, in the opinion this court, it is just and proper to take into note that the rental value of the suit schedule property taking into note that it was vacant site in the year 1993, the estimation that the rental value would be 10 paisa per sq.feet, - 43 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 would be proper as against 25 paisa as claimed by the decree holders. As such, on the basis of Ex.P.17 and in the absence of any material on record, in the opinion of this court, it is proper to consider escalation at the rate of 5% from 1993 to 2008 and at the rate of 10% from 2008 to 2013. 35) Relying on the decision reported in (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648 (South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., V/s. State of M.P. & others), I note that the decree holders are entitled for interest. Once again, the fact remains that, no documentary evidence is produced to note what was the relevant rate of interest for the above period. In the opinion of this court, the rate of interest prescribed by the nationalized bank at the relevant time would be proper to take into consideration to calculate the interest. Noting the well settled law laid down in the decision reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1214 (Lucy Kochuvareed V/s. P. Mariappa Gounder) that the Interest on mesne profits is payable till the date of realization of payment and need not be restricted only for three years from the date of decree, I note that in the present case also, the Petitioners are also entitled for interest till realization of entire mesne profits. Accordingly, in the opinion of this court, it is just and proper to grant interest to the - 44 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 tune of 5% for the estimated mesne profit for the year 1993 to 1998; and 6% for the estimated mesne profit for the year 1998 to 2003; and 8% for the estimated mesne profit for the year 2003 to 2008; and 9% for the estimated mesne profit for the year 2008 to 2013. In the nutshell, in the opinion of this court, the determination of mesne profit for the suit schedule property for the above noted period would be as below with escalation and interest. 36) The extent of the decreetal schedule property 1908 square yards equal to 17172 square feet. Period Esca lation Rate of income /profits ( per sq.ft) Rate of income / profit/yeild (per month)Rs. Rate of income / profit/yeil d (per Year)RS. Rate of income for the period /profit/ yeild (for the period) Rs. Periodical Simple Interest for year 23.12.1993 to 22.12.1998 Nil 10 paise 1717.2 (rounded as 1717) 20,640 1,03,020-00 5% 23.12.1998 to 22.12.2003 5% 10.5 paise 1803.06 (rounded as 1803) 21,636 1,08,180-00 6% 23.12.2003 to 22.12.2008 5% 11.025 paisa 1893.21 (rounded as 1893) 22,716 1,13,580-00 8% 23.12.2008 to 23.07.2013 10% 12.13 paisa 2082.96 (rounded as 2083) 24,996 1,14,565-00 9% Hence, I answer Point No.1 to 5 accordingly. 37) Point No.6 : Once again I note that, the Defendant No.3 has disputed the identification of the suit schedule property and has contented that the - 45 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 decreetal property is not in existence. At the cost of repetition, I note that as because the preliminary decree has attained its finality, now, the law does not permit Respondent No.3 to dispute the description, identification and existence of the decreetal property in this case. As noted above, as because the preliminary decree mandates that Petitioners are entitled for mesne profits, the scope of the present proceedings is to enquire and determine the quantum of mesne profits. In the opinion of this court, enquiry in respect of existence, identification and description of the suit schedule property in this case is out of the scope of this court and purview of Order XX Rule 12 of CPC. Even though there is reference of alleged dispossession of the petitioners from the schedule property mentioned in the sale deed prior to the suit, but records are that, the suit filed by the petitioners is decreed, wherein, the defendants are directed to deliver possession of the suit schedule property to the petitioners. The petitioners have specifically pleaded that they have deposited Rs.2,55,000/- as ordered in the preliminary decree. As such, in the opinion of this court, the petition deserves to be allowed in part; as because the petitioners are entitled for mesne profits, they are entitled for costs. So, holding that the present petition is maintainable one against Respondent-1 to 3 and - 46 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 they are liable jointly and severally to pay the mesne profits noted above to the petitioners, in the light of the well established principles of law that the mesne profits are in the nature of justice, which, court may mould according to justice of the case, in the opinion of this court, granting of mesne profits as noted above in the table is just, proper and reasonable one in the eye of law. In the opinion of this court, in the interest of justice, reasonable time of three months may be granted to Respondent No.1 to 3 to pay the above noted mesne profits to the Petitioners, accordingly, I answer these points and in the result, I pass the following : O R D E R 1) The petition is hereby allowed in part with costs. 2) The Petitioners are entitled for the mesne profits and the Respondents No.1 to 3 (Lrs. of respondent No.2) are jointly and severally liable to pay the mesne profits to the Petitioners to the tune of Rs.1,03,020/- for the period from 23.12.1993 to 22.12.1998, with simple periodical interest of 5% per year; and to the tune of Rs.1,08,180/- for the period from 23.12.1998 to 22.12.2003, with simple periodical interest of 6% per year; and to the tune - 47 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 of Rs.1,13,580/- for the period from 23.12.2003 to 22.12.2008, with simple periodical interest of 8% per year and to the tune of Rs.1,14,565/- for the period from 23.12.2008 to 23.7.2013, with simple periodical interest of 9% per year. 3) The Respondents No.1 to 3 are permitted to deposit the above said amount within three months from the date of this order, if they fail to pay the amount or deposit the above said amount within three months from the date of this order, then, they are liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% per year till realization of the entire amount. 4) The office is directed to draw final decree accordingly on verification that the petitioners have deposited the amount of Rs.2,55,000/- as ordered in the preliminary decree.” 7. As can be seen from the points for consideration framed by the trial court, while Point No.3 relates to entitlement of the petitioners for mesne profits, Point No.4 dealt with the quantum of mesne profits which the petitioners were entitled to, which has - 48 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 been answered as per the findings recorded not only in paragraph- 8 of the said order but also reiterated in the operative portion of the said order. Further, merely because the trial court has observed at paragraph-36 that the rental value is 96 paisa per sq.ft., the actual value taken by the trial court for the purpose of quantification of the mesne profits was 10/10.5/11.025/12.13 paisa for various periods and not 96 paisa as stated in paragraph-36, page – 41 of the said order dated 31.03.2015. Accordingly, by taking the aforesaid values, the trial court proceeded to quantify the mesne profits, to which, the petitioners were entitled to and passed the final order dated 31.03.2015. 8. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application dated 23.04.2015 under Section 152 CPC which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 27.01.2016 by correcting the figure 96 paisa as Rs.8/- in the final order at page-41 line no.9 of paragraph-36 of the order dated 31.03.2015; however, despite the said correction, the quantification of mesne profits in the body of the order dated 31.03.2015 and in its operative portion was not modified or varied or altered by the trial court, since the said correction did not have - 49 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 any bearing or impact on the actual quantification of mesne profits, to which the petitioners were entitled to in the instant proceedings. 9. As stated supra, meanwhile, the petitioners chose to challenge the said order dated 31.03.2015 passed in FDP No.17/2007 by preferring an appeal in RFA No.743/2015 which was dismissed for non-prosecution / default vide final order dated 08.11.2016 and as such, the said order dated 31.03.2015 including the quantification of mesne profits, to which the petitioners were entitled to, had attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the petitioners. Despite, these facts and circumstances, the petitioners filed one more application under Section 152 CPC which was disposed of by the trial court vide order dated 16.08.2017 by directing the Registry / office to make consequential changes in the decree by inserting Rs.8/- in the place of 96 paisa; however, since the quantification of mesne profits by the trial court in its final order dated 31.03.2015 was not based upon the value per sq.ft. as either 96 paisa or Rs.8/- and instead, since the trial court took the value as 10/10.5/11.025/12.13 paisa, while quantifying the mesne profits, coupled with the fact that the operative portion of the order and the findings recorded therein on - 50 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 31.03.2015 had attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the petitioners, whose appeal in RFA No.743/2015 was dismissed by this Court, the Registry of the trial court did not change the quantification of the mesne profits, the petitioners once again filed the instant application attempting to circumvent the final order dated 31.03.2015 and the quantification of mesne profits therein which had attained finality in view of dismissal of RFA No.743/2015 and sought for higher mesne profits by falsely contending that the trial court had quantified the mesne profits at Rs.8/- per sq.ft. in its order dated 31.03.2015, which is contrary to the material on record. It is under these circumstances, the trial court considered and appreciated the entire material on record including the earlier orders passed by the trial court and took into account the well settled position of law that even if the correction at paragraph-36 were to be made from 96 paisa to Rs.8/- per sq.ft., neither the operative portion of the order nor the quantification could be varied in the light of the finding recorded by the trial court that the mesne profits would have to be taken as 10/10.5/11.025/12.13 paisa per sq.ft., as against 25 paisa claimed by the decree holders. - 51 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 10. The trial court also came to the correct conclusion that the reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the application was not a mere correction of an accidental slip or arithmetical error but a substantive attempt to alter the effect of the final decree which is beyond the restricted / limited scope and ambit of Section 152 CPC and thereby impermissible in law. The trial court was also correct in its conclusion that though the petitioners attempt to describe their claim as a computation mistake in paragraph-36, the correction sought for by them would necessarily affect, vary, modify and alter not only the quantification of the trial court in paragraph-38 and the operative portion of the order dated 31.03.2015, but the said request would fall outside the limited scope of Section 152 CPC, which does not permit the corrections sought for by the petitioners, especially when the same would tantamount to amending the whole decree and not merely rectifying a clerical error particularly, when quantification had already been done by the trial court and the petitioners attempt to insist on claiming Rs.8/- per sq.ft. would re-open the substantive quantification of the mesne profits, which is clearly impermissible while considering an application under Section 152 CPC. - 52 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 11. The trial court also came to the correct conclusion that having suffered the aforesaid order dated 31.03.2015 passed in FDP No.17/2007, which was confirmed by this Court in RFA No.743/2017 dated 08.11.2016 filed by the petitioners, which had attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the petitioners, they were not entitled to overreach or circumvent the same by way of the instant application and accordingly, the trial court proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the petitioners by holding as under:- ORDERS ON SEC. 152. CPC APPLICATION DATED 21-06-2021 FILED BY PETITIONERS The petitioners filed the above said application prays to calculation of mesne profits at para 38 of operative portion at page 47 of the order dated 31-03-2015, has to be amended and rectified pursuant to order dated 16-08-2017 passed in the above said proceedings vide order dated 31- 03-2015. The legal heir of petitioner No.1 and GPA holder of petitioner No.2 has sworn an affidavit. 2. The LRs of respondent No.3 filed objections in detail. 3. Heard arguments of petitioners and respondent No.3 L.R. counsel. 4. The following points would arise for my consideration: - 53 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 (1) Whether the application under Sec. 152 CPC, calculation of mesne profits at para 38 and operative portion at page No.47 of the order dated 31-03-2015 is to be amended and rectified as per the order dated 16-08-2017? (2) What order? 5. My answer to the above points are: Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following: REASONS 6. POINT NO.1: The petitioners case in brief in the application as follows: 6(a). The final decree was passed by the Court on 31-03-2015. At para 36 of the final decree the Court has calculated the rent per sq.ft., in respect of Ex.P-17 lease deed of adjacent property bearing Municipal Corporation No.326 and operative portion at parа 36, the calculation arrived by the Court was erroneous, the result will be Rs.8/- per sq.ft., and not 0.96 paise per sq.ft., as arrived by the Court. The application was filed for amendment of order as there was mathematical mistake. The said application was allowed by order dated 16-08-2017 and at para 36 of the impugned order Rs.8/- was inserted in place of 0.96 paise. The said amount of Rs.8/- is determined on the basis of Ex. P-2 lease deed dated 03-03-2005. Rs.8/ was the market value of the rent in the year 2005. For the year 2005 and on wards mesne profits has to be Rs.8/- per sq.ft., and periodically increased at the rate of 5% and 10% p.a., as directed in para 36 last sentence. In respect of earlier period from 2005 to 1993 has to be reduced from Rs.8/- every year - 54 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 by 5%. The mathematical mistake has to be corrected. The mesne profits have to be awarded for the period commencing from 23-12-1993 till date of possession of suit schedule property. As per the order dated 16-08-2017 the rental value is Rs.8/- per sq.ft. From 01-01-2005 and not 0.96 paise. The operative portion at page 47 should be amended as proposed in the application and prays for calculation of mesne profits as sought. 7. The respondent No.3 L.Rs in their objections contended that the application is not maintainable, Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application as the present FDP proceedings has been concluded by order dated 31- 03-2015, The decree holder cannot conduct further proceedings by filing an application. The petitioners cannot enforce the present final decree in the proceedings itself. The petitioners had filed one more application on 20-07- 2016 under Sec. 152 CPC and for amendment and rectification order dated 27-01-2016 at page No.41 para 36 of the same. Again on 03-06-2021 the petitioners filed a similar application for amendment and rectification of order dated 16-08-2017. The petitioners have no locus standi to seek modification оr the final order without filing appeal and challenging the order. The petitioners have no right to seek amendment of conclusive opinion and observations and findings, the operative portion of the final order as the final order is the out come of conclusion, opinion, observation and findings. Once the final decree proceedings have been concluded by final order dated 31-03-2015 no party is - 55 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 entitled to file interim application for amendment of final order and prayed for dismissal. 8. The learned counsel for the decree holder submitted that the final decree was passed on 31-03-2015 at para 36 of the final decree. The Court has calculated the rent per sq.ft., which was erroneous. The application was filed under Sec.152 CPC, which was allowed to amend the mistake by order dated 27-01-2016 and directed office to carry out the mistake and corrected by substituting Rs.8/-in place of 0.96 paise in line No.9 of the order at para 36 at page 41 of the order. For the year 2005 and on wards mesne profits has to be calculated at Rs.5 per sq.ft., and periodically increment at the rate of 5% p.a. 8(a). Counsel further submits that on 16-08-2018 the Court has passed an order for consequential changes to be made in the order by inserting Rs.8/- in place of 0.96 paise. The office has not carried out the changes as Court has to do it by itself. The calculation of rental at 0.96 paise on the basis of lease deed of adjacent property. The result will be Rs.8/- per sq.ft., and not 0.96 paise per sq.ft. Consequently amendment of final order at para 36 and operative portion at page No.47 of order dated 31-03-2015 is required to be rectified and prayed to allow the application. 9. The counsel for respondent No.3 L.R. submitted that final decree proceedings was concluded and closed by passing final order dated 31-03-2015. The petitioner has not challenged the order before the Appellate Court. It attains finality. Earlier similar application was filed by the petitioners for correction of mistake in the order and carried out the - 56 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 amendment as Rs.8/- instead of 0.96 paise in para NO.38. Subsequent discussion made by the Court would show already assessment has been made in drawing the conclusion and passed final order, the conclusive findings, observations cannot be rectified by way of Sec. 152 of CPC application. The petitioner has no locus standi to sought for correction of final order. The learned counsel in support of his submissions relied upon the judgment reported in Dwaraka Das vs. State of M.P. and another (1999) 3 SCC 500. In para 6 held as follows: “The exercise of power under Section 152 CPC contemplates the correction of mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate passing of effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. After the passing of the judgment, decree or order, the court or the tribunal becomes functus officio and thus being not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed. The corrections contemplated are correcting of only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the Court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file an appeal or a review application. It implies that the Section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, how erroneous that may be.” 9(a). Sarup Singh and another vs. Union of India and another (2011) 11 SCC 198, wherein it is held that, decree which become final and binding cannot be amended under Sec.151 and 152 CPC and he prayed for dismissal of the application. - 57 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 10. After considering the submissions record would show that the petitioner has filed final decree proceedings, as per the judgment and decree in OS 9078/1996 for enquiry regarding past and future mesne profits until delivery of possession of suit schedule property. After enquiry petition was allowed on 31-03-2015 in part with costs. The operative portion of the Order reads as follows: ORDER (1) The petition is hereby allowed in part with costs. (2) The petitioners are entitled for the mesne profits and the respondents No.1 to 3 (Lrs. Of respondent No.2) are jointly and severally liable to pay the mesne profits to the petitioners to the tune of Rs.1,06,620/- from the period from 23.12.1993 to 22.12.1998, with simple periodical interest of 5% per year; and to the tune of Rs. 1,11,960/- for period from 23.12.1998 to 22.12.2003, with simple periodical interest of 6% per year; and to the tune of Rs. 1,17,540/- for the period from 23.12.2003 to 22.12.2008, with simple periodical interest of 8% per year and to the tune of Rs.1,18,525/- for the period from with simple periodical interest of 9% per year. (3) The respondent No.1 to 3 are permitted to deposit the above said amount within three months from the date of this order, if they fail to pay the amount or deposit the above said amount within three months from the date of this order, then, they are liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% per year till realization of the entire amount. (4) The office is directed to draw final decree accordingly on verification that the petitioners have deposited the amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- as ordered in the preliminary decree.” 11. Subsequently, the petitioner filed application under Sec. 152 CPC dated 23-04-2015 for correction of mathematical mistake in the order dated 31-03-2015 at page 41 para 36 of the order that mesne profit at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq.ft., as against 0.96 paise which is ordered by - 58 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 the Court. The said application was considered by the Court on 27-01-2016 allowed the application. The following operative portion of the order: ORDER (1) The application filed by the petitioners under Section 152 of CPC., is hereby allowed. (2) It is hereby ordered that the error in the order dated 31-03-2015 at page-41, in line No.9 of para 36, is clerical/typographical error. (3) ordered that the It is hereby clerical/typographical error in the order dated 31- 03-2015 at page-41, in line No.9 of para-36, is required to be corrected as Rs.8/-' in place of 96 paise'. (4) Accordingly, the said correction is made by this court on this day in the original order. (5) The file is hereby CLOSED.” 12. Again the petitioner had filed another application under Sec. 152 CPC though the Court under Sec. 152 CPC application has directed to rectify the error by inserting 'Rs.8/-' in place of '96 paise', but did not carry out consequential amendments in the order portion and prayed for effecting consequential changes in the order portion. That on 16-08-2017 the Court has passed the following order: ORDER “The office is hereby directed to consequential changes in the decree by inserting "Rs.8/-" in place of "96 paise" while calculating the mesne profits. Draw fresh amended decree accordingly.” 12(a). Directing the office to effect the consequential changes in the decree by inserting "Rs.8/-" in place of "96 paise" while calculating the mesne profits. The office has - 59 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 not carried out order. Therefore, petitioner once again filed the application under consideration for correction of operative portion of the order dated 31-03-2015 regarding calculation of mesne profits. As per the judgments cited by the counsel for the r, No.3 L.Rs, a decree which become final and binding cannot be amended under Secs.151 and 152 of CPC. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2006 (1) SCC 318 power under Sec. 152 CPC is not to be equated with the power of review. In 1999 (3) SCC 500 held that, under the guise of correcting mistake, Court cannot pass effective judicial orders on merits. 13. Considering the judgments relied by parties, the record would show that this Court by order dated 31-03- 2015 passed final 'order allowing the petition in part. Subsequently, by virtue of Sec.152 CPC application filed by the petitioners herein by order dated 27-01-2016 page No.41 line No.9 of para 36 is corrected as "Rs.8" in place of "96 paise". Subsequently, by order dated 16-08-2017 directed the office to effect the consequential changes in the decree by inserting "Rs.8"-" in place of "96 paise" while calculating the mesne profits. The office has required to carry out the amendment in the operative portion as it has to be done by the Court itself. Thereafter, the petitioners filed instant application seeking for consequential changes in the decree by "Rs.8"-" in place of "96 paise" while calculating mesne profits. The petitioners in the application in para No.11 has also given table regarding consequential changes regarding mesne profits. The respondent No.3 L.Rs seriously opposed the application that amendment of - 60 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 conclusive opinions, observations and findings and operative portion of the order as the final order is the out come of conclusion opinions, observations and findings of the same order. In order to appreciate the said fact it is necessary to extract para No.36, which reads thus: “36) The contents of Exs.P.12 and Ex.R.3, sketch and Ex.R.6 show that some portion of the Municipal No.327 was acquired for Metro in the year 2007. escalation agreed between the parties as per Once again, 1 note that the Ex.P.17 is as per their will and wish in the background of their need. The extent of the area given on lease basis as per Ex.P.17 is 41,382 sq.feet. Taking into note the extent of the property given on rental basis is to the tune of 41,382 sq.feet and monthly rent is to be tune of Rs.3,31,056/-, the calculation would be that the rental value per sq. feet, is 96 paisa in the year 2005. Once again, I note that this figure is the outcome of the will and wish of the parties to the agreement. So, keeping in mind all these facts and circumstances, in the opinion this court, it is just and proper to take into note that the rental value of the suit schedule property taking into note that it was vacant site in the year 1993, the estimation that the rental value wold be 10 paisa per sq. feet, would be proper as against 25 paisa as claimed by the decree holders. As such, on the basis of Ex.P.17 and int absence of any material on record, in the opinion of this court, it is proper to consider escalation at the rate of 5% from 1993 to 2008 and at the rate of 10% from 2007 to 2013." 13(a). As per first part of para No.36, the Court by considering Ex.P-17 observed that extent of the area given on lease basis is 41,382 sq.feet., taking note the extent of the property given on rental basis is to the tune of 41,382 sq.feet and monthly rent is to the tune of Rs.3,31,056/-. The calculation would be that the rental value per sg feet, is 96 paise (it is corrected as Rs.8/-) in the year 2005. The figure is the outcome of the will and wish of the parties to the agreement. Subsequent para of the same para it is clearly - 61 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 emphasized the keeping the facts and circumstances, the Court has come to a conclusion that the rental value of the suit schedule property taking into note that it was a vacant site in the year 1993, the estimation that the rental value wold be 10 paise per sq. feet, would be proper as against 25 paisa as claimed by the decree holders. Therefore, by considering Ex.P-17, the rental value as agreed between the parties in respect of Municipal No.327. which was acquired for Metro in the year 2007. In the present case, the rental value has fixed at 10 paise per sq.ft., as against 25 paise claimed by the decree holders. 14. In para 38 of the order in the table considered the period escalation, rate of income and periodical interest etc., After clear opinion and findings the Court has passed final order based on the observations and findings. Therefore, even if it is corrected as Rs.8/- as a clerical mistake in para 36 of the order dated 31-05-2015, it is only circumstances for the Court to fix the mesne profits in the instant case. No consequential changes in the operative portion order would be permissible. It is nothing but altering the entire judgment on merits. It is against the scope and power of Sec. 152 CPC. The amendment regarding conclusive opinion, observations and findings is not permissible. The petition is finally decided on 31-03-2015 and it is finally concluded. After passing of judgment decree or order the Court becomes functus officio and thus being not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders passed earlier as 'observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dwaraka Das case stated supra. Accordingly, the - 62 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22747 WP No. 16149 of 2025 application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed and answered the point in the Negative. 15. POINT NO.2: Hence the following: ORDER The application filed by the petitioners under Sec.152 CPC dated 21-06-2021 is dismissed. No order as to costs.” 12. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 13. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl. List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1