Jaswant Singh, J. - (1.) DEFENDANT -appellant has filed the present regular second appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.12.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Karnal whereby an appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Assandh decreeing the suit of the plaintiff -respondent No. 1, has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff -respondent filed a suit for possession along with mesne profit and consequential relief of permanent injunction regarding the shop in dispute as described in para No. 1 of the plaint. Upon notice, the suit was resisted. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court decreed the suit ordering that the defendant -appellant shall hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question to the plaintiff -respondent within a period of two months from the date of judgment. Thereafter, on an appeal having been filed, the same has been dismissed by the learned appellate Court, hence the present second appeal.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has argued that both the courts below have gravely erred while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff -respondent in view of the facts & circumstances of the case in hand. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal.
(3.) A perusal of paper book reveals that the learned trial Court framed as many as ten issues and issues Nos. 1 & 6, being material are reproduced hereunder: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property as prayed for?OPP 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred by principle of res -judicata?OPD";