The failure of the lower appellate Court to frame necessary and proper issues for proper and effective adjudication is not a substantial question of law if the court has considered all the materials available on record and discussed the same before arriving at a conclusion.

1. The petitioner has filed this review application to review the earlier judgment in S.A. 802/98. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S. 386/94 on the file of the District Munsif, Sathyamangalam for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,000/- with interest due on promissory note executed by the appellant herein. The defence put forth by the appellant is that the pronote is not supported by consideration and the same had been executed in a chit transaction and only a sum of Rs. 2,000/- is due from the appellant. The District Munsif dismissed the suit. The respondent preferred an appeal in A.S. 77/97. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and ultimately decreed the suit. Against which the second appeal was filed. This Court dismissed the - Second Appeal on the ground that the lower appellate Court had accepted the evidence of the respondents and as such mere is no substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal. Only to review the abovesaid judgment this application has been filed.

2. Even though in the Memorandum of Grounds filed in the Review Application, the petitioner has stated that the judgment of this Honble Court is based on erroneous assumption of fact and contrary to the oral and documentary evidence before the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly represented that he is not questioning any of the findings of the lower appellate Court as well as the reasoning given by this Court for the dismissal of the Second Appeal. However, in the Second Appeal he has raised a ground that the lower appellate Court failed to frame necessary and proper issues for proper and effective adjudication and this was not brought to the notice of this Court when the Second Appeal was argued. As this is a substantial question of law, as per the judgment reported in Munivel v. Munusamy Mudaliar (1996-2-LW-574), Kadar Hussain v. Selvaraj (1997-II-MLJ-57) and Palanisami Pillai v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Dept., (1997-I-L.W. 704), the matter has to be reconsidered. It is further contended that as it is mandatory duty of the lower appellate Court to frame the points for consideration as per Order 41, Rule 31 C.P.C. the failure on the part of the lower appellate Court would vitiate the findings and this itself will be a substantial question of law for consideration in the Second Appeal.

3. I carefully considered the contention of the learned counsel. Order 41, Rule 31 C.P.C, is as follows:—

“The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state—

(a) the points for determination;

(b) the decision thereon;

(c) the reason for the decision; and

(d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied the relief to which the appellant is entitled; and shall bear the date on which it is pronounced and shall be signed by the Judge or the Judges concurring therein; provided that where the presiding Judge is specially empowered by the High Court is pronounce his judgment so pronounced shall, after such revision as may be deemed necessary, be signed by the Judge.”

The provision contemplates the contents of the judgment as follows:

i. me points for determination;

ii. the decision thereon

iii. the reason for the decision; and

iv. where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied the relief to which the appellant is entitled;

In short, the appellants contention is that the first requirement is absent in the judgment of the lower appellate Court, whereas all the other three requirements are fulfilled. If that be so, whether it will be a ground much less a substantial ground to entertain the Second Appeal?

4. Now I will consider the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. The first judgment is reported in Munivel v. Munusamy Mudaliar (1996-2-L.W. 574) in which while construing Order 41, Rule 31 C.P.C., the learned Judge has held as follows:

“In this case, the first appellate Court has not conformed strictly to the provisions of Rule 31. This Court has he