The Appellate Court's failure to formally frame separate points of determination under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not fatal to the judgment if the court has extensively addressed the parties' rival arguments and resolved the issues on merits.

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Sd/-

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) challenges the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.92 of 2015 by the 4th Additional District Judge, Bharuch, whereby the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Bharuch allowed the first appeal and obtained the judgment and decree passed by the learned civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 157 of 2003, whereby the learned civil Court has rejected the suit of the plaintiff on the various grounds raised in the appeal memo on the following questions as substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether the Appellate Court while allowing Regular Civil Appeal No.92 of 2015 has framed issues as envisaged under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code, 1908?

(ii) Whether Court Civil the has overlooked the aspect of non-joinder of necessary and proper parties in Regular Civil Appeal No.92 of 2015 in view of Order I Rule 10 of the Code 1908?

(iii) Whether the learned Civil Judge has considered the vital legal aspect on the count that minor has purchased land in the year 1943 who was attained majority in 1946 and in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Guardianship Act , Minority & ancestor of the appellant Nos.1,2,4 and 5 of the are the co-owners disputed property?

(iv) Whether the Appellate Court can rely upon revenue entries which are for fiscal purpose under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?,”

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to their original status i.e. plaintiff and defendant.

3. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of Second Appeal are as under:-

3.1 That the ancestor of viz. the respondents herein Ranchodbhai Vaghela and the ancestor of the appellant Nos.1 to 5 herein had purchased No.388 land admeasuring mtrs. situated at Post City Survey 159.70 sq. Magnadi Bhagol, Taluka Jambusar, Jambusar, District Bharuch vide registered sale deed dated 21.04.1943. It is most respectfully submitted that ancestor of the appellant Nos.1,2,4 and 5 was minor at the relevant time. Thereafter it was given City Survey No.397.

3.2 That the respondents herein instituted civil suit for permanent injunction as appellants may not disturb their possession/transfer or assign the land in question by filing Regular Civil Suit No.157 of 2003, which was dismissed by learned Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Jambusar vide order dated 30.12.2014.

3.3 That being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.157 of 2003, herein the respondents have preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.92 of 2015, which was allowed by judgment and decree dated 16.04.2024 by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch below Exh.27.

3.4 That aggrieved by and dissatisfied with judgment and decree dated 16.04.2024 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.92 of 2015 below Exh.27, the appellants – plaintiffs have preferred present Second Appeal.

4. Seeking admission of the aforesaid appeal, learned advocate Mr. Chirag B. Patel appearing for the appellants – plaintiffs harped upon the argument that the learned appellate Court has not followed the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of “the Code” in its true perspective. Learned appellate Court has not framed the appropriate points of determination, which may