Honble YADAV, J. – Instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.95 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Phalodi in Civil Appeal No. 5/94 whereby he allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree dated 25.08.94 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Phalodi in civil original suit No. 22/92 whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff-appellant was decreed. (2). It is evident from the plaint allegation that the plaintiff- appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction about the residential house in question alleging to be acquired by his common ancestors along with the ancestors of defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The boundary of the house in question has been disclosed in paragraphs 2 of the plaint. In paragraph 6 of the plaint it is clearly averred by the plaintiff-appellant that the residential house for which defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had obtained `Patta in their own names are not entitled to obtain `Patta of the said house as the house in question is ancestral. (3). The contesting defendant Nos. 1 to 3 denied the averments made in the plaint including the averments made in paragraphs 6 of the plaint in their written statement. (4). On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed as many as 5 issues and gave opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. (5). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgments given by learned lower appellate court as well as trial court. (6). A close scrutiny of the judgment given by learned lower appellate court reveals that it had proceeded to decide the appeal on merits before formulating points for determination involved in the appeal as envisaged under O. 41 r. 31 CPC. It is further revealed from the perusal of the judgment given by the learned lower appellate court that although learned trial court framed as many as 5 issues and has recorded findings on each issues but the learned lower appellate courts instead of reversing the findings recorded by learned trial court on each issues proceeded to decide only issue No. 4 and in this process he reversed the entire findings even on other issues recorded by the learned trial court. (7). Mr. (7). Mr. R.K. Thanvi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents strenuo- usly urged before me that although learned lower appellate court has discussed only issue No. 4 but while discussing issue No. 4 it has taken into account the decision given by learned trial court on other issues also. I am not impressed with the argument of learned counsel for respondents. I am of the opinion that whenever and wherever an appeal is filed before a appellate court u/s. 96 CPC the appellate court is under statutory obligation to formulate the points for determination as envisaged under O. 41 R. 31 CPC and any breach committed by appellate court in this regard shall be treated to be substantial error of law and procedure. (8). As regards second limb of argument of Mr. Thanvi to the effect that in the garb of issue No. 4 the learned lower appellate court has decided other issues too in not acceptable. Suffice it to say in this regard that when a fact is borne out clearly from perusal of the judgment the same cannot be made debatable. Debatable question arises where there is some ambiguity but in the present case there is no ambiguity at all in the judgment of learned lower appellate court to the effect that it has decided only issue No. 4 therefore it cannot be argued that while deciding issue No. 4 the learned lower appellate court has also decided other issues. (9). There is yet another reason to arrive on the aforesaid conclusion. It is to be remembered that courts of law have developed a judicial principle from time immemorial that if a court is of the view that two or more issues are inter-linked and these issues can be dealt with together only then decision of one issue can be mixed up with decision of other issue otherwise not. In the present case the learned lower appellate court has not made any such observation, hence the contention of Mr. Thanvi is hereby repelled. (10). To my mind due to lack of formulation of points for determination by learned lower appellate court the decision on the following questions escape its notice which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and fair play :– 1. Thanvi is hereby repelled. (10). To my mind due to lack of formulation of points for determination by learned lower appellate court the decision on the following questions escape its notice which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and fair play :– 1. WHETHER the residential house in question was of the ancestral property of the plaintiff along with defendant No. 1 to 3 , if so , its effects ? 2. WHETHER the expression `Abadi land defined under Rajasthan Panchayat (General Rules) 1961 includes only vacant land or it also includes residential houses in existence ? 3. WHETHER grant or cancellation of Patta proceedings under Rajas- than Panchayat (General Rules) 1961 or under amended Rules 1994 are only summary proceedings and its validity can be examined by civil court in a regular suit ? (11). Learned counsel for respondents Mr. R.K. Thanvi argued that question about definition of Abadi land given under Rule 251 of the aforesaid rules is not involved in the present case. I am not satisfied with the argument of Mr. Thanvi in as much as there is a clear averment in paragraph 6 of the plaint that defendants No. 1 and 2 have no legal justification to obtain ``Patta in their favour with regard to ancestral residential house in existence. The averments made in paragraphs 6 of the plaint has been denied by the defendant-respondents in paragraphs 6 of their written statement hence both the parties were at variance. As plaintiff and defendants both are at variance in their pleadings therefore the learned lower appellate court has no option except to determine the disputed question of fact alleged by plaintiff and denied by the defendants in the present case. (12). Apart from the aforesaid points for determination if learned lower appe- llate court during course of argument by learned counsel for the parties found any other question for determination involved in the appeal then it would be at liberty to formulate the same and decide it in accordance with law. (13). (12). Apart from the aforesaid points for determination if learned lower appe- llate court during course of argument by learned counsel for the parties found any other question for determination involved in the appeal then it would be at liberty to formulate the same and decide it in accordance with law. (13). Since the learned lower appellate court has omitted to formulate points for determination in the appeal as postulated under O.41 R. 31 CPC therefore the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate court is hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned lower appellate court to decide the same on merits keeping in view the observations made in the body of this judgment. (14). Learned counsel for respondents Mr. R.K. Thanvi submitted that direc- tion for deciding the appeal expeditiously may be given to the learned lower appellate court. This submission has substance therefore the learned lower apellate court is hereby directed to decide the Appeal as early as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from today. (15). In view of what have been discussed above the instant Appeal is allowed and the case is remanded back to the learned lower appellate court with a direction to re-admit the appeal to its original number and decide the same on merits in accordance with law after formulating points for determination involved in the appeal. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case both the parties are directed to bear their own costs. (16). Office is hereby directed to remit the records of both the courts below forthwith.