1. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court in this case runs as follows 'Heard Vikil. The appeal is summarily dismissed.' Although we have beard a brave and courageous argument in support of this judgment, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the terms of the judgment are not in accordance with the interpretation which has been placed on Order XLI, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, by this Court, (See in this connection the cases of Rami Deka v. Brojo Nath Saikia 25 C. 97 : 1 C.W.N. 692 : 13 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 66, Rahhal Chunder Tewari v. Satindra Deb Rai 5 C.L.J. 348, and the judgment of Mr. Justice Richardson in the case of Pachi Dasi v. Bala Das 2 Ind. Cas. 405 : 13 C.W.N. 1031. As has been pointed out in these cases the dismissal of an appeal under Order XLI, Rule 11, Civil. Procedure Code by a Court whose decision may be the subject of an appeal does not relieve the Court from the necessity of writing a judgment which however need not be a long one. But the judgment, whatever it is, should show the points raised, the decision upon those points and the reasons for the decision. In the circumstances which have happened in this ease we must set aside the decision of the lower Appellate Court dated the 28th July 1920, and remand the case in order that the appeal before the lower Appelate Court may be disposed of properly and in accordance with law.
2. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that the appeal to this Court has been abandoned as against defendant NO. 8. The learned Vakil for the respondent also draws our attention to the fact that defendants No. 3 and 7 are dead. It will be open to the defendants to take such objections as they may be advised, when the appeal is re-heard by the lower Appellate Court.
3. The appeal is allowed and the appellants are entitled to the costs of this appeal.