JUDGMENT
S.K. Jain, J.
1. Civil Suit No. 462 dated 7.8.1987 filed by the plaintiff Mukhtiar Singh against Nazir Singh for recovery of Rs. 56,480/- on the basis of pronote and contemporaneous receipt, was decreed by Shri Lakhbir Singh, Additional Senior Sub- Judge, Mansa vide his judgment and decree dated 8.2.1990. The defendant filed Civil Appeal No. 68 of 3.3.1990. It was dismissed by Shri Maghar Khan, Additional District Judge, Bhatinda vide his judgment and decree dated 25.7.1992. The defeated defendant has preferred this Regular Second Appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their help, have gone through the record of the case.
3. I find force in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that a Civil appeal is re-hearing of the case. But from the impugned judgment learned first appellate Court, it is evident that he has neither scaned the evidence nor has met the arguments advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties.
4. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the learned Additional District Judge had given brief facts of case of the plaintiff ; defendant’s version ; and issues in para Nos 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties have been noticed in para Nos. 7 and 8. Para Nos. 9 and JO which contain his decision, read as under :-
“Para 9.-I have myself perused the receipt Exhibit P-5 in which the date is clearly written as 15.8.1984. So, it cannot be said that the pronote was materially altered.”.
Para 10.-In view of discussion made above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Mansa has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondents against the appellant-defendant. As such, this appeal is without merit in it and the same is dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned.”
From the above scrutiny of impugned judgment, it is clear that the learned Additional District Judge has neither scaned the evidence adduced at the trial nor discussed arguments advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties, even though he had noticed them in details as mentioned above.
5. It is, thus, evident that the judgment of the first appellate Court has failed to comply with the legal requirements of Order 41, Rule 31, Civil Procedure Code and therefore, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 are mandatory in nature. The first appellate Court has to set out points for determination, record the decision thereon and give its own reasons for the said decision. Looking to the plain language of the above said rule, it cannot be said that failure to comply with these provisions is a bare irregularity. The Legislature has laid down these rules so that the second appellate Court should be in a position to find out the track traversed by the first appellate Court. It cannot runaway from its onerous duties of recording the finding of fact and or discussing the evidence. Strictly speaking and with due respect to the learned Additional District Judge, as one reads the judgment, it cannot be said to be a judgment of the first appellate Court at all within the meaning of Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure ; otherwise these imperative provisions would be reduced to empty formalities. There maybe cases where in a given set of circumstances the court may ignore a point here and there but if there is an application of mind to the issues involved, then certainly such a judgment could be sustained, as I read the judgment of the Additional District Judge, he has nowhere ventured to discuss the evidence en record nor it has dealt with all the arguments of learned counsel for the parties which he had noticed as mentioned above.
6. In the result, the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside and the case is remanded back to the first appellate Court with a direction to hear the learnel counsel for the parties again and then write the judgment afresh strictly in accordance with law. He will pronounce the judgment on or before 15th September, 1993.
7. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned first appellate Court on 16th August, 1993. Record of the case be transmitted backwards forthwith.