The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of adhering to the statutory provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 Code of Civil Procedure and the need for the appellate court to independently assess the evidence, consider relevant points for adjudication, and provide reasons for its decision.

B. Amit Sthalekar, J.

Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sharada Prasad Mishra holding brief of Sri Yogesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is the defendant's second appeal. A suit for specific performance of agreement to sale dated 3.5.2013 was filed by the plaintiff. The suit was decreed by the trial court. Appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant was dismissed.

3. The appeal is admitted on the following question of law :-

A. Whether the judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court is vitiated inasmuch as the Appellate Court did not frame the point of determination as provided under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was mandatory.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant before me today is that the appellate court while dismissing the appeal has not framed any point of determination and has only referred to issues framed by the trial court and thereafter delivered the judgement dismissing the appeal.

5. This fact could not be disputed by Sri Sharada Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case reported in 2014 (16) SCC 109, United Engineers and Contractors v. Secretary to Enlivenment of Andhra Pradesh and others. wherein the Supreme Court has held in para-8 which reads as under :-

"(8) This Court has considered the scope of Order 41, Rule 31 CPC in H. Siddiqui (dead) by LRs. v. A. Ramalingam, AIR 2011 (SC) 1492 and held as under :

"18. The said provisions provide guidelines for the appellate court as to how the court has to proceed and decide the case. The provisions should be read in such a way as to require that the various particulars mentioned therein should be taken into consideration. Thus, it must be evident from the judgment of the appellate court that the court has properly appreciated the facts/evidence, applied its mind and decided the case considering the material on record. It would amount to substantial compliance of the said provisions if the appellate court's judgment is based on the independent assessment of the relevant evidence on all important aspect of the matter and the findings of the appellate court are well founded and quite convincing. It is mandatory for the appellate court to independently assess the evidence of the parties and consider the relevant points which arise for adjudication and the bearing of the evidence on those points. Being the final court of fact, the first appellate court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on each point independently to that of the trial court. Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and the court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions. (Vide: Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Thakur Kalyan Singh and Anr., 1963 AIR (SC) 146; Girijanandini Devi and Ors. v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, 1967 AIR (SC) 1124; G. Amalorpavam and Ors. v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai and Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 224; Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, 2008 AIR (SC) 171; and Gannmani Anasuya and Ors. v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary and Ors., 2007 AIR (SC) 2380).

19. In B.V. Nagesh and Anr. v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, 2010 (13) SCC 530, while dealing with the issue, this Court held as under :

"The Appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial Court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case therein is open for re-hearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth a