profits for which the plaintiff firm is entitled to, from the defendant from 02-06-2002 and onward, how much is paid by the defendant and how much balance is there have to be the subject matter of the final decree proceedings. Even-though the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan case (supra) is in a partition suit, since this case on hand involves question for final decree in respect of mesne profits, in my considered view the proposition of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan case (supra) is applicable to the facts of the case on hand also and it is not permissible in this Court to adjourn the matter sine die. On the other hand, it is the duty of this Court to proceed with the final decree proceedings suo-motu without expecting the plaintiff firm to file a petition for final decree proceedings under Order XX rule 12(1) (ba) and (c) of the CPC. It is made clear that the plaintiff firm is entitled for mesne profits for the use of the suit property by the defendant subsequent to 02-06-2002. But, however, what are the details of the mesne profits, would be the subject matter of the final decree proceedings. In view of the above conclusions, the following :
