R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. :- Heard the learned advocates parties.

2. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 2nd February, 1988 in First Appeal No.4 of 1978. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge has set aside the judgment and decree dated 29-4-1977 passed by Court in Special Civil Suit No. 226 of 1973 and has ordered issue preliminary decree for partition of the property, while declaring the share parties and also giving directions for rendition of the accounts from 5-6-1 the respondent/plaintiff gets the possession of the l/7th share in the properly.

3. Though the impugned judgment and decree is sought to be challenged on various grounds, it is not necessary to deal with all those grounds and to refer to only one ground which relates to non-compliance of ma provision of law comprised under Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code Procedure by the appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment.

4. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the respondent/plaint a suit for partition claiming right to the property in question which was contested by the appellants and on conclusion of trial, the suit was dismissed. The was carried in F.A. No.4 of 1978 which was dis