was that it was in possession of the said hoarding in its own right. Significantly, however, there is no cross-examination on this aspect nor has the Defendant or any witness on his behalf entered into the witness box to refute the claim of the mesne profits of Rs. 200/- per day. There is no suggestion in the crossexamination that the amount claimed as mesne profits was excessive or otherwise. Even in the memo of appeal, which was filed sometime in February 2009, there is no ground taken that the original Defendant/Defendant were not in possession of the said hoarding. The learned Single Judge has therefore, in our view, rightly answered this issue in favour of the Plaintiffs. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant submitted that sometime after the passing of the impugned judgment, the said hoarding is no more in possession of the Defendant and the decree would have the effect of the Defendant having to pay the amount of Rs. 200/- per day in perpetuity. We are, however, unable to accept this submission. The Defendant, before the trial Court, has not disputed that he was in possession of the hoarding in question. As to when the Defendant ceased to be in possession after the passing of the decree would be a matter to be considered when the decree is put in execution.
