JONNALAGADDA RAMREDDY Vs. NOOKALA NARASIMHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the counsel.

(2.) The substantial question of law, which had been argued at length in the Second Appeals is as hereunder: What is the effect of not formulating the points for consideration by the lower appellate court, as required by Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C?

(3.) There is no controversy between the parties that the Appellate Court had recorded the issues and had discussed the, evidence on record but had not framed the points for consideration. The counsel for the appellants with all vehemence had contended that though concurrent findings had been recorded, by virtue of non-framing of points for consideration, the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court are vitiated and are liable to be set aside. The counsel representing the respondent, on the other hand, had placed strong reliance in Gorella Durga Vara Prasad v. Indukuri Rama Raju and had contended that almost all the grounds raised in the appeal had been dealt with and hence, a mere omission to frame the point for consideration would not vitiate the judgment and decree by itself per se unless it is shown that injustice had been caused by non-consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record or therwise it is shown that the findings recorded are perverse. The learned counsel also brought to my notice that the matter was remanded once and additional issues were framed and in view of the same there is no point in making an order of remand in the present Second Appeal.