ISRAR HUSAIN Vs. MOHAMMAD LATEEF & 2 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.

(2.) The issue as to whether an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1A would lie against a compromise decree or not was set at rest between the parties in the judgment rendered by this Court in Second Appeal No. 122 of 2011 on 22.12.2014 and in pursuance thereof, the proceedings before the first appellate court in civil appeal no. 09 of 2011 proceeded and the first appeal on being decided by judgment/decree dated 06.09.2016 has given rise to the present second appeal under Sec. 100 C.P.C.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgment/decree rendered by the first appellate court below is bad in the eye of law for the reason that the court below failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Order 41, Rule 31 C.P.C. inasmuch as, the points of determination involved in the first appeal were not framed and decided, hence a substantial question of law is made out.