Judgment :- At the stage of admission itself this CRP is taken up for final disposal with the consent of counsel on either side. 2. Heard Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Devarajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The respondent herein instituted O.S.No.38 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur, praying for a judgement and decree declaring that the Resolution No.8, dated 21.1.2001 passed by the Board of Directors of Rotary Club of Thanjavur Mid Town, Thanjavur is null and void, declaring that the plaintiff is and continues to be a member of the Rotary Club of Thanjaur Mid Town, Thjanjavur and restraining the defendant from enforcing and or implementing the Resolution No.8 dated 21.1.2001 and for other incidental reliefs. The suit is being resisted by the defendant-Rotary Club of Thanjavur Mid Town, Thanjavur, represented by its 21 Board of Directors. 4. Pending the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.93 of 2001 praying for the relief of ad interim injunction from giving effect to and implementing its Resolution Nos.1 to 3, dated 1.4.2001 and from conducting the Board Meeting scheduled to be held on 4.5.2001. The said injunction application was resisted by the defendant by filing a detailed counter. 5. Subsequently, the very same plaintiff also instituted another suit in O.S.NO.192 of 2001 as against the same Rotary Club of Thanjavur Mid Town and 19 others seeking for a declaration that the Resolutions 1 to 3 dated 1.4.2001 passed by the Board of Directors of Rotary Club of Thanjavur Mid Town, Thanjavur is null and void and for permanent injunction as well. The earlier suit has a checkered career. Pending the earlier suit, the plaintiff again moved I.A.No.429 of 2001 seeking the relief of ad interim injunction from implementing the Resolutions 1 to 3 dated 1.4.2001. After contest, the learned District Munsif of Thanjavur by order dated 18.7.2001 dismissed the injunction application. Once again the plaintiff filed a third suit O.S.NO.220 of 2002 seeking the relief of Declaration that the Resolution of the General Body of the defendant Rotary Club, dated 15.5.2002 terminating the membership in the defendant club is null and void and also sought for a declaration that the plaintiff continues to be a member of the defendant Club, besides seeking the relief of injunction forbearing the defendants from preventing the exercise of his rights as a member of defendant-club. All the suits are being resisted by the sole defendant. 7. Pending the third suit O.S.No.220 of 202, the plaintiff Chandrasekaran filed I.A.467 of 2002 to restrain the defendant-club from preventing him from exercising his right as a Member of the defendant club until disposal of the suit. The said application was resisted. 8. The learned District Munsif of Thanjavur by order dated 2nd December, 2003, dismissed the said application as no prima facie case has been made out. Being aggrieved, the very plaintiff preferred CMA.No.3 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Thanjavur. The learned Additional Judge, by fair and decretal order dated 29th April 2003 set aside the order passed by the trial court, allowed the appeal and restrained the defendant from preventing the plaintiff-petitioner from exercising his right as a Member of the Club until the disposal of the suit. Challenging the same, the present revision has been preferred by the Defendant-Club. 9. Though a number of contentions were sought to be advanced by the revision petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, the learned counsel rightly pointed out that the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) has proceeded on a misconception by framing the point in the said appeal for consideration as hereunder:- "Whether the Appeal is allowed or not?" 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also persuaded this court that though it is a revision preferred under Section 115 C.P.C., this court shall exercise the powers under Art.227 as has been held by the Supreme Court in a recent pronouncement. 11. Framing of such an issue or point for consideration would disclose total non application of mind though there is some discussion. The points that should have engaged the attention of the Learned Additional District Judge, Thanjavur are: (i) Whether the plaintiff in the suit has made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction prayed for on the facts of the case? (ii) Whether the order of the trial court dismissing the application for injunction is liable to be interfered on one or more of the grounds urged? (iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction despite the earlier suits, orders, applications being dismissed and injunction application being disposed of? (iv) Whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction at this belated point of time? (iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction despite the earlier suits, orders, applications being dismissed and injunction application being disposed of? (iv) Whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction at this belated point of time? 12. These are some of the relevant points that arise for consideration. But the Court below has merely framed the point for consideration as to "Whether the appeal is allowed or not?". The very language employed by the Court below itself would depict total non application of mind, failure to consider the appeal in a manner required by a court of appeal. When the injunction application is taken out for consideration at least the minimum requirement on the part of the court below being framing of necessary points that arise for consideration on the pleadings. This at least should have been done properly, less, the court may fail to advert to consider material point or may commit irregularity or error of jurisdiction or its order may result in miscarriage of justice. While granting order of injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, what is the minimum requirement to be considered is also relevant in terms of Order 39, Rule 1 and 2. 13. In this case, the very failure to frame appropriate point by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Thanjavur warrants interference as the points which arise or required to be framed have not been framed and the points to which the attention of the court should have been drawn has not engaged the mind of the Court below and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice as a further consequence resulting in material irregularity and illegality. Even though it is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the minimum requirement being framing the appropriate points that arise for consideration in such appeals. Mere detailed alone will not be sufficient as it is the bounden duty of the court below to frame appropriate points that arise for consideration. 14. In terms of Order 43 Rule 2, rules in Order 41 and Order 41-A shall apply, so far as may be to appeals from the orders specified in Rule 1 of Order 43 and other orders of any civil court from which an appeal to the High Court is allowed under any provision of law. 14. In terms of Order 43 Rule 2, rules in Order 41 and Order 41-A shall apply, so far as may be to appeals from the orders specified in Rule 1 of Order 43 and other orders of any civil court from which an appeal to the High Court is allowed under any provision of law. The appeal has been preferred under Order 43 rule (v) CPC. We will take up Order 41. In terms of Rule 31 of Order 41, the judgement 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 bear the date on which it is pronounced and shall be signed by the Judge or the Judges concurring therein. 15. In the present case, the point framed by the learned Additional District Judge is no point at all. The point which arise for determination by the court below must cover all important questions involved in the case and it shall not be general or vague. In the present judgement under revision, the learned Additional District Judge has not set out the necessary points for determination in accordance with Order 41, Rule 31 and failure to frame the points for consideration may be an irregularity. But such irregularity is being repeated by the same Fast Track Court as seen from very many number of Revisions which came up for admission before this Court. 16. The jdugement of the Court which does not discuss or allure the total reasoning of the District Judge must be deemed to be an error of procedure. However, it has been held that as there has been substantial compliance of the rules, the court may ignore the irregularity. On the facts of the present case, the minimum points that arise for consideration has not even been framed and this cannot be treated as a mere irregularity alone as in the present case there has been earlier litigation between the same parties and earlier applications for injunctions were considered and disposed of on merits. 17. On the facts of the present case, the minimum points that arise for consideration has not even been framed and this cannot be treated as a mere irregularity alone as in the present case there has been earlier litigation between the same parties and earlier applications for injunctions were considered and disposed of on merits. 17. When this illegality was pointed out by this court to the counsel on either side about the framing of points and consideration thereof, it was rightly agreed by the counsel that the matter may be remitted back to the court below (Fast Track Court, Thanjavur) for fresh consideration according to law. 18. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case advanced by either parties, the judgment and decree passed by the Fast Track Court, Thanjavur in CMA.NO. 3 of 2003 are set aside and the matter is remitted back in exercise of inherent powers as well as powers under Art.227 and this court further directs the learned Fast Track Court Judge to frame appropriate or suitable points that arise for consideration on the facts of the case and pass orders according to law. 19. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and remanded to the Court below in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.