DAYARAM Vs. DILIP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) Mr. V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in not granting decree for mesne profit despite having granted the decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffs. In that view of the matter both the Courts below ought to have granted decree of mesne profit from the date of decree upto the delivery of possession under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC. Accordingly, the second appeal involves substantial question of law for determination.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, considered his submissions and went through the records with utmost circumspection.