ORDER :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order dated 11.07.2003 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Surendranagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.1 of 1994, the appellant has preferred the present second appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the First Appellate Court has not properly determined the substantial questions of law and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Somakka (Decd) by Lrs Vs. K. P. Basavaraj (Decd) By Lrs., reported in AIR 2022 SC 2853.

4. Considering the facts of the case and materials place on record, it appears that the First Appellate Court has not framed any substantial questions of law. I have also perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below. In my opinion, under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter be referred to as “the Code”), the First Appellate Court is bound to frame points for consideration, however, the same is not done. The provisions of Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that how the First Appellate