1. The sole point urged before us is that the appellate court has completely failed 'to consider' any of the grounds urged before it.
2. Mr. W. A. Shishak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was preferred against the iudff-ment passed in a title suit, the subject matter is a landed property worth several thousands. The appellant raised several substantial questions before the appellate court. However the court merely expressed the view that he had nothing to add as the court of the first instance had discussed all the issues and rendered an exhaustive judgment.
3. It is true that the trial court has exhaustively dealt with all the Issues and it is a laborious judgment and the views expressed are also sound but the
fact remains that the appellant urged as many as 13 grounds in his Memo of Appeal, at least some were healthy and strong. But the appellate court did not even state in brief what were the grounds nor was there any discussion why they were considered rejectable. An appellate court is duty bound to consider the points urged before it touching the questions of facts and law and to give reasons for its decision.
The impugned judgment, in our opinion, is a 'barren judgment.' The appellate Court has completely failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law and most reluctantly we set aside the order and direct the appellate court to rehear the appeal. The appellate court shall on receipt of the records issue notice to the parties particularly to the opposite party-defendant' and upon hearing the parties dispose of the appeal in accordance with the direction set forth above.
4. Before parting with the records we observe that we were compelled to remit the matter as the appellate court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction, who was 'duty bound' to dispose of the appeal according to the law-the duty or the obligation is imposed by and under Rule 34 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police, 1937. However it may not be understood that the remand order is made because the order of the trial court is weak or it is reversible. We remit the case for the simple reason that the learned appellate court must exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law and should not dispose of matter in such a slipshod manner. Appellate court shall carefully scrutinise all the evidences, documentary or oral, hear the parties or their advocates and dispose of the appeal within 3 months from the date of receipt of the records. Under no circumstances the disposal shall be beyond the said period of 3 months.
5. We also make it clear that the appellate court ought to concentrate on the issues and shall not take into consideration any extraneous matters, i. e. matters not relevant to the subject matter of the issues. The subject matter of determination should remain confined within the limits of the issues framed by the trial court. We do not make any order as to costs, as none represents the opposite party before us.
6. In the result the petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Send down records forthwith.