the judgment and decree, the court below has exercised it’s discretion in regard to ascertainment of rental value of the suit property for the relevant period. The test to determine the quantum of mesne profits is how much profit defendant might have received from the property with ordinary diligence. Order XX Rule 12 (ba) & (c) confers power upon court for directing an inquiry as to mesne profit. The word “inspection” as used in order XXXIX Rule 7 of the code has got no relationship with the direction for making inquiry in order to ascertain mesne profit in terms of order XVI, Rule 9, read with order XX, Rule 12 C.P.C. Order XVI, Rule 9 speaks about ascertaining of mesne profit. The question of fishing out evidence can arise in case of a local inspection commission but not in case of investigation /inquiry granted under order XXVI, Rule 9, read with Order XX, Rule 12 of the code and as such principle laid down in AIR 1978 Cal 296 is not applicable in the present context. Even the court can make order for inquiry suo moto if deems necessary to the court for the purpose of the elucidating the matter in dispute and if the court exercises such discretion ordinarily there should not be interference by this court. Accordingly exercise of such discretion by the court below is not perverse. In view of above I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below.
