1. This is a second appeal in which the point which has been raised before us on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff is that the judgment of the lower appellate Court dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff is not a judgment according to law. The judgment is as follows:
The facts are laid out in the judgment of the lower Court. The decision is a reasonable one and as a Court of appeal I am not justified in going against it. Rejected summarily. Sd/- A.H. De B. Hamilton.
2. On behalf of the respondent it was argued that this judgment was sufficient for the purpose of dismissal of an appeal summarily under 0, 41, Rule 11. That rules states that, ' the Court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed. '
3. But we consider that such an order should be governed by the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 which states:
The judgment of the appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state: (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (C) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied the relief to which the appellant is entitled.
4. In the present case the learned District Judge should have set forth the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons, for the decision. He has altogether failed to comply with this direction of law. The view of law which we take has been followed in Gupta Nand v. Bihari Lal A.I.R. 1924 All. 100 and Ma Saw v. Ma Bwin Byu A.I.R. 1926 Rang. 129. For the respondent attention was invited to Samin Hasan v. Piran  30 All. 319, but that case is different, because in that case the judgment in question did give brief reasons. In the judgment before us of the lower appellate Court no reasons whatever are given. Accordingly we allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and direct that that Court do admit this appeal and dispose of it according to law. Costs hitherto incurred will be costs in the case.