Vijayendra Nath, J.

1. The main question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. Although at the time of admission of this appeal, by ORDER :dated 24.02.1994, two substantial questions of law were framed but the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the substantial question of law with regard to Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is not being pressed. However, he has proposed another substantial question of law, as to whether the reversal of finding by the appellate court below is against the provision of ORDER :41 Rule 31 C.P.C. as it has failed to pass a reasoned JUDGMENT : assigning its own reasons specially when there is absence of cogent evidence on behalf of the plaintiff to establish the sale deed dated 18.08.1973 Ext.F/1 as evidencing a sham transaction, and has prayed for hearing of this appeal on this substantial question of law also. In view of the JUDGMENT :, which is going to be passed hereafter, there is no necessity to formulate another substantial question of law and consider the same.

2. Heard th