Mahendra Dayal, J. - (1.) The review-applicants have filed this application for review of the judgment and order dated 10.11.2014 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.159 of 2008, whereby the second appeal was allowed and while setting aside the judgment and order dated 23.04.2008, passed by First Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Regular Civil Appeal No.197/2007, the appeal was remanded and the first appellate Court was directed to restore the appeal to its original number and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties and after framing points of determination, as required under Order 41, Rule 31 CPC.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the judgment as well as relevant case laws on the subject.
(3.) Learned counsel for the review-applicants has contended that this Court while disposing of the second appeal did not frame any substantial question of law, as required under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. This Court while disposing of the second appeal observed that the learned first appellate Court did not comply with the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 CPC, which requires the first appellate court to frame points of determination before deciding the first appeal. The submission on behalf of the review-applicants is that although framing of points of determination is mandatory, but non formulation of points of determination does not render a ground for setting aside a judgment specially where the parties knew fully well that what was the point in issue and no prejudice is caused to any of the parties by non formulating of points of determination. The learned first appellate court while deciding the first appeal considered all the arguments of the parties and also dealt with the same in the judgment. It is not necessary for the court to frame points of determination at the initial stage. In some cases these points can be framed even at a later point of time or at the argument stage. The learned first appellate court has dealt with every aspect of the matter while deciding the first appeal and, therefore, this court ought not to have set aside the judgment of the first appellate court merely on the ground that the substantial points of determination were not framed by the learned first appellate court. It is not a case of parties that their arguments were not considered by the first appellate court. Thus, in the absence of any prejudice to any of the parties, non framing of points of determination would not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate court and render it to be illegal. Learned counsel for the review-applicants has relied upon two decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in 2014 STPL (LE) 39179 SC, in which, it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the substantial question of law can be formulated at the initial stage and in some exceptional cases at a later point of time even at the time of arguments provided the opposite party is put on notice thereon and is given proper opportunity to meet out the point. In another case relied upon by the review-applicants is reported in AIR 2008 SC 951, in which, it has been held that non formulation of substantial questions of law will not render any judgment illegal if no prejudice is caused to any party. Thus, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this Court ought not to have set aside the judgment and remanded the matter back to the first appellate court for reconsideration when it was not pleaded that any prejudice was caused to any party.;