ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This plaintiff's second appeal arises out of a suit for permanent injunction and is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below.
(2.) The sole contention of counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is that the first appellate Court failed to state the points arising for determination in the appeal. Its judgment is vitiated on account of non-compliance of Order 41, Rule 31 CPC. He has further submitted that the appellate Court has decided only the issues framed by the trial Court. The relevant provision, namely, Order 41, Rule 31 C.P.C. mandates that the first appellate Court must state in its judgment. The points arising for consideration in the appeal.
(3.) In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar, 2015 RD (126) 646, A.M. Sangappa v. Sangondeppa, AWC 2014(2) 1153 and B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, 2011 AWC(12) 1810.;