Judgment : By order dated 22/10/2013, the parties were put to notice that the Appeal may be heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2. Heard Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Netravalkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 3. Admit on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the mandate of Order XLI, Rule 31 of C.P.C. has not been followed by the learned District Court while deciding the Appeal.” 4. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 31/01/2013 passed by the learned District Judge-I North Goa at Panaji (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No.25/2011. 5. The said appeal was filed by the respondent against the judgment and order dated 18/12/2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, 'C' Court at Mapusa (trial Court) in Special Civil Suit No.14/2000/C. The trial Court had decreed the suit whereas the First Appellate Court has dismissed the same. 6. The defendant had specifically pleaded in the written statement that the fire was not accidental but the plaintiff had destroyed the vessel purposely by putting fire to it, with mala-fide intention of shelling out money from it. It was also alleged that the there was huge loan outstanding to be paid by the plaintiff to the Fisheries Federation and in order to get rid of the same, the vessel was deliberately set on fire in order to claim compensation. In the said Special Civil Suit, issue no.3 as framed was as follows : “3. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff destroyed the said vessel intentionally by putting fire to the said vessel with mala-fide intention of shelling out money from them?” This issue has been answered in the negative, by the trial Court. However, in the Regular Civil Appeal No.25/2011, the First Appellate Court has not framed the point for determination as to whether the defendant had proved that the plaintiff destroyed the said vessel intentionally by putting fire to it with mala-fide intention of shelling money from it. No point for determination has been framed, in this regard. However, in the Regular Civil Appeal No.25/2011, the First Appellate Court has not framed the point for determination as to whether the defendant had proved that the plaintiff destroyed the said vessel intentionally by putting fire to it with mala-fide intention of shelling money from it. No point for determination has been framed, in this regard. The defendant had nowhere pleaded that since the plaintiff had obtained loan from Co-operative Society, Panaji for purchase of the said vessel and had not repaid the loan amount; since the plaintiff had received letter from Federation informing that the total outstanding amount was Rs.7,56,109.66/- and lastly since the insurance policy was valid up to 23rd January 1993 and the incident had taken place on 28/12/1992 and the plaintiff used to receive letters from Fisheries Federation Co-operative Society demanding payments, it should be deemed that the fire was intentional and not accidental. It was specific plea in written statement of the defendant that the plaintiff had deliberately destroyed the said vessel by putting fire to it. A party who affirms a fact has to discharge the burden of proving the same. If the defendant has been able to prove the said plea, the plaintiff would be non-suited. This point has a direct bearing on the first point framed by the First Appellate Court as to whether the plaintiff has proved that the fire on the fishing vessel was accidental consequent to the stove bursting and whether he is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from the defendant. Hence, framing of the said point and determination of the same, in terms of the pleadings and supporting evidence, if any, was essential. However, the learned First Appellate Court has not at all framed the said point and merely on the basis of the statements made by the plaintiff in his evidence, has made observation that the said circumstances would establish the case of the defendant that the fire was intentional and not accidental. Indirectly, the learned First Appellate Court has put the burden on the plaintiff of proving that the fire to his vessel was not intentional. On this ground alone, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded to it for framing the said point and deciding the same in accordance with law. 7. On this ground alone, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded to it for framing the said point and deciding the same in accordance with law. 7. The learned trial Court, in Special Civil Suit No.14/2000/C, held that the defendant could not prove that the suit is barred by the principle of Res Judicata. The learned First appellate Court has reversed the said finding of the trial Court and has held that the suit is barred by Res Judicata. While deciding the point of Res Judicata, the learned First Appellate Court does not appear to have considered the provisions of Section 11 of C.P.C., since the issues that were framed by the District Consumer Forum and by the State Commission are not known as they are not stated by the learned First Appellate Court and there is no comparison of the issues in Special Civil Suit No.14/2000/C with those before the District Consumer Forum and the State Commission and there is no finding that the matter directly and substantially in issue/s was/were directly and substantially in issue in the said former proceedings. The impact of the observation by the State Commission that the plaintiff is free to approach the Civil Court for redressal, if he is so advised, in case he is in a position to establish that it was an accidental fire which destroyed the vessel based on reliable evidence in its support, has not at all been considered by the learned First Appellate Court, while holding that the State Dispute Redressal Commission had finally decided the issue of liability of the defendant to pay for the damages. The finding of the learned First Appellate Court on this point is cryptic and requires reconsideration. 8. The Appeal No 104/1998 was disposed of by the Goa State consumer Dispute Redressal Commission by order dated 1/7/1999. The suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2000. The finding of the learned First Appellate Court on this point is cryptic and requires reconsideration. 8. The Appeal No 104/1998 was disposed of by the Goa State consumer Dispute Redressal Commission by order dated 1/7/1999. The suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2000. The learned First Appellate Court has not taken into account the impact of the observation made by the State Commission that the plaintiff is free to approach the Civil Court for his redressal, if he so desires, while holding that the proceedings before the consumer Forum were decided on merits and that there was no cause which prevented the Consumer Forum from dealing with the matter on merits and therefore, the plaintiff would not be entitled to exclusion of time contemplated under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Section 14 of Limitation Act should be liberally construed. It has to be seen whether there was cause more or less of the nature of defect of jurisdiction. When the State Commission dismissed the complaint by observing that the plaintiff is free to approach the Civil Court for redressal, if he is so advised, in case he is in a position to establish that it was an accidental fire which destroyed the vessel based on reliable evidence in its support, the question is whether the State commission has decided the liability of the defendant to pay the damages, on merits. This point also requires reconsideration. 9. Order XLI, Rule 31 of the C.P.C. provides as under : “31. 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.” 10. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be quashed and set aside and the matter remanded to the First Appellate Court for deciding the said point arising out of issue no.3 as framed by the trial Court and the points of Res Judicata and limitation afresh, in the light of the observations made above. Substantial question is therefore answered accordingly, in favour of the appellant. Substantial question is therefore answered accordingly, in favour of the appellant. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. (a) The impugned judgment and decree dated 31/01/2013 passed by the First Appellate Court, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 25/2011, is quashed and set aside. (b) The matter stands remanded to the First Appellate Court to decide the said appeal afresh in the light of the observations made above. (c) Parties to appear before the learned First Appellate Court, on 16/01/2014 at 10.00 a.m. 12. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.