JUDGMENT:

1. The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The appellant filed the suit for specific performance of contract under agreement of sale dated 04.08.1988 alleged to have had been executed by Sri Matte Augustin (1st defendant) and his son, who is the 3rd respondent herein, in his favour in relation to plaint schedule property, stating that the deceased Sri Matte Augustin and the 3rd respondent were residing in United States of America and rarely visiting this country and therefore, there was a belated demand by the appellant on the deceased Matte Augustin to perform his part of contract.

3. The 4th respondent is the wife of late Sri Matte Augustin. The respondents contested the suit raising several pleas, while also referring to O.S.No.36 of 1992 filed before the learned Principal District Munsif, Bhimavaram. O.S.No.36 of 1992 is a suit for bare injunction in between these parties.

4. Basing on the issues settled and after considering the evidence, learned trial Judge decreed the suit with costs.

5. The 1st respondent, who was the 3rd defendant in the suit, carried the matter in appeal and it was allowed setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court.

6. In these circumstances, the appellant has presented this second appeal.

7. Sri M. Chalapati Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri B.V.S.S. Balakrishna Ranjit, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, addressed arguments in this second appeal.

8. It is the contention of Sri M. Chalapati Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellate Court did not consider the matter in proper perspective upon appreciating the material and evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that two petitions were filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure for reception of additional evidence, when the certified copies of judgment and decree relating to the cases, which were in between these parties, were sought to be produced. It is further contended that the manner in which these petitions were considered by the learned appellate Judge gives an indication that there was prejudging the issues. He particularly pointed out that the appellate Court, though framed as many as 11 points for determination, did not address all of them and the important question to be considered as to bar of limitation was overlooked. Thus, pointing out the perversity in the judgment of the appellate Court and castigating the mode of consideration of the material, it is requested by the learned counsel for the appellant to remand the matter for fresh consideration by the appellate Court.

9. Sri B.V.S.S. Balakrishna Ranjit, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, pointing out the circumstances and manner in which the appellate Court has dealt with the issues in question, requested to pass appropriate judgment.

10. In this backdrop, now the point for determination is whether the approach of the learned appellate Judge is appropriate and is meeting Order 41 Rule 31 and 33 of C.P.C. ?

11. Learned appellate Judge considered as many as 11 points for determination. Point No.7 relates to effect of bar of limitation. While discussing point Nos.1 to 10 together, findings of learned appellate Judge in para No.36 of his judgment are confined to point Nos.1 to 4 and 6. Learned appellate Judge intended to consider the point Nos.1 to 4 and 6 together holding that they are interrelated. Ultimately, the conclusions were drawn basing on the aforestated points alone leaving aside the other points. In paragraph No.61 of its judgment, the appellate Court observed that the trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in right perspective and therefore, sought to interfere with the same.

12. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is but proper for the learned appellate Judge to consider all the points to be determined on the material and evidence. When a few of them are left out or rather overlooked, an inference to draw is that the very