Judgment This second appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 12.09.2013 in A.S.No.122 of 2010 on the file of the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. The appellant herein suffered a decree for recovery of money in O.S.No.278 of 2008 filed by the respondent in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant has filed A.S.No.122 of 2010 in the Court of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District. By the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2013, the lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Assailing both these judgments, the unsuccessful defendant filed this second appeal. At the hearing, Mr. E.V.S.S. Acharyulu, learned counsel appearing for Mr. K. Gani Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly advanced three submissions, namely; 1) that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is contrary to the mandatory provisions of Rule 31 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the C.P.C.”); 2) that the appellant has filed I.A.No.345 of 2012 under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. for receiving additional evidence and that the same was not considered and 3) that the detailed written arguments filed by the appellant have not been adverted to. Mr. S. Srinivasa Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent, has fairly not disputed the fact that I.A.No.345 of 2012 was filed by the appellant for adducing additional evidence. He has also not disputed that the appellant has filed written arguments. He has, however, stated that his counterpart has also filed written arguments and that both have not been considered by the lower appellate Court. The main issue that arises for consideration in this second appeal is whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court is in conformity with the provisions of the C.P.C.? Order XLI of C.P.C. deals with appeals from original decrees. This order is a self-contained code in itself, which governs the appeals from the stage of their filing till their disposal. Under Rule 27 of Order XLI, the parties, subject to the conditions stipulated in sub-clauses (a), (aa) and (b) of clause (1) thereof, are entitled to produce additional evidence. Order XLI of C.P.C. deals with appeals from original decrees. This order is a self-contained code in itself, which governs the appeals from the stage of their filing till their disposal. Under Rule 27 of Order XLI, the parties, subject to the conditions stipulated in sub-clauses (a), (aa) and (b) of clause (1) thereof, are entitled to produce additional evidence. Undisputedly, the appellant has filed I.A.No.345 of 2012 under the said provision for receiving additional evidence. As noted above, one of the grievances of the appellant is that without disposing of the said application, the lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal. In my opinion, the lower appellate Court has committed a serious error in disposing of the appeal without passing appropriate order on I.A.No.345 of 2012. Rule 30 of Order XLI deals with pronouncement of judgment. Rule 31 prescribes contents, date and signature of the judgment. Clause (a) thereof envisages that the judgment of the appellate Court shall state the points for determination. From a perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it is evident that it has not framed the points for determination. It has only observed that “having thoroughly gone to (sic through) the pleadings and the evidence on record, the following observations are made”. In my opinion, the provisions of Rule 31 are couched in mandatory form. Therefore, any judgment, which is not in conformity with the said Rule, cannot be sustained. Further, it is the grievance of both the learned counsel that the lower appellate Court has not undertaken proper discussion with reference to the written arguments filed by them. On a careful perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, I am of the opinion that the lower appellate Court has made a perfunctory approach in dismissing the appeal without properly considering the material aspects arising before it in the appeal. For the above-mentioned reasons, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside. The case is remanded to the lower appellate Court with a direction to pass a fresh judgment strictly in accordance with the provisions of the C.P.C. within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The second appeal is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to the allowing of the second appeal, S.A.M.P.No.186 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.