D. P. HIREMATH, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal is directed against the judgement and decree of the court of the Civil Judge, Chitradurga, in R. A. No. 9/1975 confirming the judgement and decree of the court of the Munsiff, Hosadurga, in O. S. No. 23/1972 for declaration of his title to. the suit property and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff had alleged that he had purchased the suit property from one Ramachandrappa (defendant-2/ respondent-2) for valuable consideration on 14-6-1970 and therefore he was entitled to the relief claimed. Inter alia the defendants-respondents resisted the suit contending that defendant-2 had no authority to alienate the property, he was not the Manager, there was no legal necessity or family necessity and therefore the sale was invalid. The trial Court upheld the contentions of the defendants and dismissed the suit. ( 2 ) WHEN the regular appeal came up for arguments before the first Appellate Court on 17-9- 1977, the Appellate Court was obsessed with the absence of the appellant's Counsel as it observes in paragraph 13 of the judgment, that even though the appeal had been posted in the special list in the interest of justice the opportunity was given to the appellant's counsel to argue the case on 19-9- 1977. When the arguments were not advanced on that day also, the Appellate Court proceeded to deliver its considered judgment on merits. ( 3 ) A grievance is now made in this second appeal that the first Appellate Court was wrong in disposing of the appeal without discussing the evidence on record and simply observing that the issues framed by the trial Court was un-exceptionable and the judgment followed from that evidence. It is particularly contended that there is no discussion of evidence by the first Appellate court which is opposed to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on this ground alone the decree is liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) WHILE admitting the second appeal the following question of jaw has been formulated. Whether the lower Appellate court was justified in rejecting the appeal without following the procedure prescribed under order 41 of the Code of Civil procedure for disposal of the appeal ? ( 4 ) WHILE admitting the second appeal the following question of jaw has been formulated. Whether the lower Appellate court was justified in rejecting the appeal without following the procedure prescribed under order 41 of the Code of Civil procedure for disposal of the appeal ? ( 5 ) SRI Krishna Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has taken me through the judgment of the first Appellate Court and pointed out that the first Appellate court simply stated through out its judgment that the issues framed were proper and discussion of evidence was sufficient. In paragraph 14, the learned Appellate judge has observed as follows: it cannot be said that no proper issues have been framed. The real controversy or the matter in dispute has been properly understood by the trial Court and proper issues have been framed for* just decision of the case. Under these circumstances this ground that no proper issues have framed is not sustainable. One of the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal that the lower Court given its reason on a partisan attitude and an imagination with a view to favour defendant No. 1 and has not properly understood the facts of the case, though the case of the plaintiff is for declaration and possession. I have gone through the entire judgment and I do not find any reason that the learned munsiff has acted on a partition attitude and arrived at the findings on his own imagination. " again in paragraph 16, the learned Appellate Judge observed as follows: "the learned Munsiff in para 10 has fully discussed this aspect of the case and in view of the fact that the 1st defendant has taken the stand that he has inherited the property and he has been in possession and enjoyment from his boy-hood days and the plaintiff having failed to establish that the property has come to the family under the palupatti Ext. P-4 and even the adverse possession set up by him is proved. " ( 6 ) ORDER 41 Rule 17 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where on the day fixed or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing the Court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed. " ( 6 ) ORDER 41 Rule 17 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where on the day fixed or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing the Court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed. Explanation to this rule says that nothing in this sub-rule shall be construed as empowering the Court to dismiss the appeal on the merits. Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code, relating to the judgmentof the. Appellate Court, is as follows:-"contents, date and signature of judgment; 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, and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein. ' ( 7 ) PERHAPS, in this appeal the appellant's grievance is that the first Appellate Court did not comply with the requirement of order 41 Rule 31 of the Code. A reading of the judgment of the first Appellate Court thus supports the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, inasmuch as it does not comply with any of these requirements. It is needless to say that the first Appellate court is a final Court of facts and it is duty bound to re-assess the evidence and come to its own finding on the points involved for determination. Therefore, from the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal, the first duty of the Appellate Court is to formulate the points for determination and then give out the reasons referring to the evidence and then give its decision. It is particularly so because the scope of the second appeal is very much restricted, after the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 1976 and only substantial question of law be urged in the second appeal. Therefore it is the first Appellate Court that becomes the final Court of facts which cannot be re-agitated in a second appeal. Therefore it is the first Appellate Court that becomes the final Court of facts which cannot be re-agitated in a second appeal. Therefore, the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that the first appellate Court did not comply with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code, must prevail. ( 8 ) THE appeal cannot be disposed of without expressing concern of this Court over the manner in which the matters are handled at all levels. It is unfortunate that the Appellant's Counsel before the first Appellate Court has failed in his duty and obligation towards his client to assist the court in arriving at a correct conclusion by referring to the deficiencies in the judgment of the trial Court. Justice cannot be done nor can be expected to be done without proper assistance and co-operation of the Advocates on record. The Special list system was introduced with the avowed object of impressing on ail concerned the necessity of taking up the matter which comes up in the special list without seeking any adjournment. But habits and tendencies bein what they are, even the Special list system appears to have flopped. It had no effect on those concerned in assisting the Courts and this is a clear instance of such a situation. As could be seen, the first appeal was instituted in the year 1975 and came to be disposed of in september 1977. So, it was pending before the first Appellate Court for two years six months and 13 days. Even then the Counsel appearing for the Appellant before the first Appellate Court never realised his duty towards the Court or his obligation towards his client. it looks well to argue in the second appeal, finding fault with the appellate Court that it did not adhere to the procedure established by law. But what is forgotten is the other part of the matter namely the indifference on the part of the Counsel appearing for the Appellant. It is as though the Courts alone are concerned with the ultimate justice without there being any corresponding obligation on the part of the Advocates who are officers of the court. This is how the matters lie over for several years and are being tossed between Courts due to such indifferent attitudes. Every one concerned should realise the responsibility and duty to assist in the administration of justice. This is how the matters lie over for several years and are being tossed between Courts due to such indifferent attitudes. Every one concerned should realise the responsibility and duty to assist in the administration of justice. I do not think anything more need be said in such deplorable state of things. With these observations and for the reasons stated above, this Court finds no alternative but to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court with all concern and remit the appeal to the first Appellate Court with a direction to follow the procedure laid down under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dispose of the appeal expeditiously and preferably within three months from the receipt of the papers by the first Appellate Court. The records shall be transmitted to the Appellate Court forthwith. --- *** --- .