SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.

1. Validity of judgment without framing issues with reference to Order VIII Rule 10 and Order XIV Rule 1 C.P.C. and nature and object of procedural law is involved in the present First Appeal.

2. Heard Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant.

3. This is defendant's appeal which has been filed praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2018 & 5.12.2018 respectively in O.S. No. 361 of 2005, Smt. Sneh Lata Gupta vs. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. passed by the Judge Small Causes Court/Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Ghaziabad.

4. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly the defendant-appellant issued an allotment letter dated 2.6.1998 allotting industrial plot No. E 29, area 1000 sq. meters in Industrial Area, Udyog Kunj, Ghaziabad, for setting up an Industrial Unit for manufacture of pressure cooker. The physical possession was given by the defendant-appellant to the plaintiff-respondent on 990 sq. meter land on 16.9.1998. There was some delay by the plaintiff-respondent in establishing the factory, therefore, the defendant-appellant issued demand notice to plaintiff-respondent asking her to pay the entire premium, lease rent, interest and penalty etc. amounting to Rs. 13,34,866.67/- which was paid by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendant-appellant on 27.6.2003 which was accepted by the defendant-appellant and a receipt was also issued. There was a condition in the agreement dated 10.08.1998 that manufacturing shall be started by the plaintiff-respondent within two years i.e. upto 9.8.2000 and in the event it is not done then the defendant-appellant shall have a right to take back the vacant possession of the allotted plot. However, as mentioned above; the defendant-appellant themselves permitted the plaintiff-respondent to continue with the occupation of the disputed plot and demanded penalty etc. for such continuation which was paid by the plaintiff-respondent on 27.6.2003. The plaintiff-respondent could not fully set up the factory upto 9.8.2000 on account of several reasons including her illness and heart surgery of her husband. Ultimately, the plaintiff-respondent completed the construction of the factory building over the plot in question and installed machineries and started manufacturing of pressure cooker. She also gave an affidavit before the plaintiff-respondent on 29.1.2005 for starting of the production by 31.3.2005. However, in the mean time, the defendant-appellant issued a notice to the plaintiff-respondent to vacate the disputed plot and handover its possession failing which possession shall be taken forcibly. Aggrieved with the threat given by the defendant-appellant, the plaintiff-respondent filed O.S. No. 361 of 2005 for permanent injunction, which has been decreed by the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2018. In this suit the defendant-appellant had not filed written statement within the time. The explanation submitted for late filing of the written statement was found to be false and, therefore, Court of Additional Civil Judge (SD)/Judge Small Cause Court, Ghaziabad, passed an order dated 6.12.2006 for not taking on record the written statement and rejected the application 42 Ga' filed by the defendant-appellant. This order was not challenged by the defendant-appellant.

5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned judgment dated 24.11.2018 and the decree dated 5.12.2018, the defendant-appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 96 C.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submits as under:

(i) The impugned judgment has been passed without framing issues under Order XIV Rule 1 C.P.C. and, therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbux Singh vs. Harminder Kaur, 2010 (14) SCC 301, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

(ii) The learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submits that the aforesaid argument is the only argument on behalf of the def