[1.0] Present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has been preferred by the appellant herein – original plaintiff to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.07.2005 passed by the learned trial Court - learned 4th Additional Sr. Civil Judge, Nadiad in Regular Civil Suit No.235 of 2003 as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the learned Appellate Court – learned 7th (Ad-hoc) Additional District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Regular Civil Appeal No.332 of 2005 by which the learned lower Appellate Court has dismissed the said Appeal preferred by the appellant herein – original plaintiff by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit.

[2.0] Facts leading to filing of the present Second Appeal in nut-shell are as under:

[2.1] That the appellant herein – original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.235 of 2003 against the respondent herein – original defendant in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadiad for specific performance of the Agreement to Sale. That the learned trial Court framed the issues and on appreciation on evidence the learned trial Court dismissed the suit and refused to pass the decree for specific performance of Agreement to Sale by judgment and decree dated 25.07.2005.

[2.2] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing Regular Civil Suit No.235 of 2003, appellant herein – original plaintiff preferred First Appeal – Regular Civil Appeal No.332 of 2005 before the learned Appellate Court under Section 96 of the CPC and without framing any specific point for determination on the issues raised by the learned trial Court and solely raising the point for determination that whether the appellant proved that the judgment of the trial is against the established principles of law or whether the learned trial Court has committed an error apparent on the face of record and without even re-appreciating the entire evidence on record and/or giving any specific finding on the issues raised by the learned trial Court and only in one paragraph has dismissed the said Appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit.

[2.3] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below more particularly impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court dismissing the Appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit and making grievance with respect to the manner in which the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal, the appellant herein – original plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC.

[3.0] Shri Adeshra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned lower Appellate Court cannot be sustained. It is submitted that as such the learned Appellate Court has not exercised the appellate jurisdiction vested in it more particularly the exercising jurisdiction under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. It is submitted that the learned Appellate Court has not re-appreciated the evidence on record and in just one paragraph and without even discussing the evidence on record and even without raising the points for determination on the basis of issues which were raised by the learned trial Court, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal without even assigning any reasons.

[3.1] Shri Adeshra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Nagesh and Anr. vs. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy reported in (2010)13 SCC 530 with respect to the powers to be exercised by the lower Appellate Court while deciding the App