Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22153 Court No. - 5 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 575 of 2017 Appellant :- Barial Das And Another Respondent :- Aasudaram Alias Aasudamal And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dwijendra Mishra,Bhawna Kalani,Ravindra Pratap Singh,Sarah Jainal Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Pandey,Jyotindra Prakash Pathak,Kapil Muni Dubey,Laxmi Kant Pathak,Prakhar Rastogi Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondents no.1/1 to 1/4 by Sri Kapil Muni Dubey, learned counsel, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Dhirendra Kumar Dubey holding brief of Sri Kapil Muni Dubey, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.1/1 to 1/4. 3. Instant second appeal has been admitted vide order dated 17.01.2018 on the substantial questions of law at (i) to (xvi) in the memo of appeal. Of the various substantial questions of law the substantial question no.(xiii) is as under:- "Whether the judgment and decree of the learned appellate court is against the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC?" 4. The Court has perused the judgment passed by the learned appellate court dated 05.10.2017. A perusal of the judgment of the learned appellate court would indicate that admittedly the learned appellate court has neither stated the points for determination nor the decision thereon and neither the reasons for the decision and consequently it is apparent that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC have not been adhered to by the learned appellate court while passing the impugned judgment dated 05.10.2017. 5. As per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and others vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation-2024 INSC 401, even though the first appellate court did not separately frame the points for determination arisen in the first appeal it would not have been fatal as long as the appellate court has dealt with all issues that had arose for deliberation in the said appeal and substantial compliance with the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC would have been sufficient. However, a perusal of the judgment of the learned appellate court would indicate that the court has not dealt with all issues which arose for deliberation in the said appeal which fact is also admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Considering the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order impugned dated 05.10.2017 passed by the learned appellate court in Civil Appeal No.12 of 2016 (Computer Registration No.000021/2016) in re: Ashuda Ram vs. Pariyal Das and others is set-aside. The matter is remitted to the learned appellate court to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 7. Further considering the fact that the appellant no.1 herein was said to be aged about 87 years at the time of filing of the second appeal in the year 2017 and the learned counsel for the appellants states that now the appellant no.1 is aged about 96 years, as such, considering this aspect of the matter, learned appellate court is directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned expeditiously say within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is brought on record without granting any unnecessary adjournments. 8. Trial court record be returned as per procedure. Order Date :- 18.4.2025 A. Katiyar Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench