The judgment of the appellate court must reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth by both the sides.

Anil Kumar, J. –

Heard Sri K.M. Garg, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.

Present appeal has been filed by defendant against the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2014 (decree signed on 01.04.2014) passed by Additional District Judge, Court N0. 12, Ghaziabad dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2013 filed by defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2013, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hapur by which the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs vide original Suit No. 310 of 1992.

2. Sri K.M. Garg, learned counsel for appellants while pressing the present appeal at the outset submits that as per the provisions as provided under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC the mandatory duty is casted upon the learned appellate court to frame the point of determination while deciding the appeal and the said exercise has not been done in the present case, so keeping in view the substantial question of law as framed by the appellant as "G", the appeal is liable to be allowed.

3. Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for respondents after arguing at some length does not dispute the said fact, on the other hand, he submits that keeping in view the mandatory provision aof Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, the appeal be heard and decided at the admission stage.

4. Accordingly, as agreed between the parties, the appeal is being heard and decided at admission stage.

5. As per admitted position of the case while passing the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2014 (decree signed on 01.04.2014) passed by Additional District Judge, Court N0. 12, Ghaziabad, the appellate court has not framed the point of determination as provided under Oder 41 Rule 31 CPC the said exercise is mandatory on the part of the appellate court as per judgment given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Ranchod and others, 2008 (71) ALR 750 (SC). has held as under: -

"Section 54 of the Act, insofar as relevant for the purposes of the present appeals, says that subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award of the Court.

Order XLI CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Order XLI Rule 31 lays down that the judgment of the appellate court shall be in writing and shall state (a) the points for determination, (b) the decision thereon, (c) the reasons for the decision, and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. This provision has come up for consideration in innumerable occasions and its meaning and scope has been explained. It is not necessary for us to refer to various decisions but we will refer to one of the recent judgments given in G. Amalorpavam and Others. v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, 2006 (63) ALR 301 (SC)=2006 (40) AIC 69. wherein this Court observed as under: -

"The question whether in a particular case there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC has to be determined on the nature of the judgment delivered in each case. Non-compliance with the provisions may not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly void, and may be ignored if there has been substantial compliance with it and the higher appellate court is in a position to ascertain the findings of the lower appellate court. It is no doubt desirable that the appellate court should comply with all the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. But if it is possible to make out from the judgment that there is substantial compliance with the said requirements and that justice has not thereby suffered, that would be sufficient. Where the appellate court having considered the entire evidence on record and discussed