1. Heard Mr. K.P. Sarma, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.6.2004, passed in Title Appeal No. 44/2000 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhubri, affirming the judgment and decree dated 6.6.2000 in Title Suit No. 156/1991, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Dhubri. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Sarma that defendant No. 1 in the plaint, namely, Aswini Kumar Ghosh, has since expired and the present appellants were defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the suit. 4. The appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 19 11 2014 on the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether the omission of the Appellate Court to form the points for determination in terms of order 41, rule 1 of CPC which have vitiate the and decreed. 2. Whether there is non-consideration of evidence accused by the defendants by the Appellate Court. 3. Whether the findings of the learned lower Appellate Court that there was a path way as claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint prior to 1956 is a perverse filling?" 5. Learned counsel for the parties submit that there are some typing errors in the said substantial questions of law, which are quite noticeable, and they submit that keeping the core substantial questions, as formulated, in fact, the substantial questions should read as follows : "1. Whether the omission of the Appellate Court to formulate the points for determination in terms of order 41, rule 31, CPC has vitiated the decree? 2. Whether there is non-consideration of evidence adduced by the defendants by the Appellate Court? 3. Whether the findings of the learned lower Appellate Court that there was a pathway prior to 1956, as claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint, is a perverse finding?" 6. During pendency of the appeal, this court had stayed the Title Execution Case No. 2/2005, pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Dhubri. 7. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for the following reliefs : "(a) For a decree declaring that the plaintiff has right of the way and the easement right on the said way described in the Schedule below and in the sketch map. 7. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for the following reliefs : "(a) For a decree declaring that the plaintiff has right of the way and the easement right on the said way described in the Schedule below and in the sketch map. (b) For a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the obstruction on the said way. (c) For a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from closing or inter-fencing in the right of way by any act of future obstruction. (d) Cost of the suit from the defendant. (e) Any other relief to which the plaintiff may be entitled in law and equity." 8. The defendants contested the suit by filing a detailed written statement. 9. The learned trial court, as noted earlier, decreed the suit. The judgment of the learned trial court was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 10. Inviting the attention of the court to the substantial question of law No. 1, Mr. Sarma has submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court cannot be sustained in law in view of order 41, rule 31, CPC. It is submitted by him that during trial, the plaintiffs examined six witnesses and the defendants examined two a witnesses, apart from a court witness. Both sides had exhibited certain documents. The witnesses of the defendants were also subjected to lengthy cross-examination. The learned trial court discussed the evidence adduced by the defendants in one single sentence to the effect that both the DWs had denied the existence of road. There was no discussion on the other evidence adduced by the defendants. The Appellant Court did not refer to the evidence of the defendants at all and, only on the basis of the evidence of PWs, which according to him, was also a perverse appreciation, dismissed the appeal. Mr. Sarma has also submitted that none of the documents adduced by the defendants were also taken note of by either of the courts. Accordingly, he submits that this is fit case, where the court ought to allow the second appeal by remanding the case back to the lower Appellate Court to examine the records in the correct perspective and dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law. 11. Ms. Accordingly, he submits that this is fit case, where the court ought to allow the second appeal by remanding the case back to the lower Appellate Court to examine the records in the correct perspective and dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law. 11. Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent submits that d while it is correct that the learned lower Appellate Court did not avert to the evidence adduced by the DWs and that there was no detailed and elaborate discussion on the evidence of DWs by the learned trial court, from the materials on record and from the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses, it becomes apparent that the plaintiff had been e able to establish its case and, therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court is not vitiated for non-consideration of the evidence of the defendants' witnesses. 12. Even though Mr. Sarma as well as Ms. Choudhury had addressed on the substantial questions of law No. 3 also, I am satisfied that the second f appeal deserves to be allowed on the substantial questions of law Nos. 1 and 2 and, therefore, it is not necessary to consider the arguments advanced in respect of substantial question of law No. 3. 13. It is no longer res integra that judgment of the Appellate Court must be self-contained so that the findings of fact can be sustained upon a bare perusal of it. Order 41, rule 31, CPC, inter alia, provides that the judgment of the Appellate Court shall state the points for determination, decisions thereon and the reasons for decision and, therefore, it is incumbent on the part of the learned lower Appellate Court to give reasons for its eventual decision on the points for determination and, while doing so, learned lower Appellate Court, being the final court of facts, has to advert to the evidence on record. 14. If the learned lower Appellate Court did not even avert to the evidence of the witnesses of the defendants, can the judgment of the lower Appellate Court be said to be a self-contained judgment; more so, when the learned trial court had not weighed the evidence of the defendants and had only cursorily averted to the evidence of the defendants in one single sentence. In spite of the aforesaid glaring shortcoming of the judgment of the learned trial court, the learned Appellate Court chose to ditto the judgment of the learned trial court without any consideration whatsoever on the evidence adduced by the defendants. Surely, in the facts of the case, the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court falls short of the requirements as laid down in order 41, rule 31, CPC. 15. In the result, the appeal succeeds. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.6.2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhubri, in Title Appeal No. 44/2000 is set aside and quashed and the case is remanded back to the lower Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law on the basis of the materials already available on record. 16. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the Title Execution Case No. 2/2005, arising out of judgment and decree dated 6.6.2000 in Title Suit No. 156/1991, passed by the learned (Junior Division) No. 1, Dhubri, has now been transferred to the Court of the learned Munsiff, Bilasipara, Dhubri, and re-numbered as Title Execution Case No. 4/2013. 17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that till disposal of the appeal afresh by the learned lower Appellate Court, the execution of the decree, in Title Execution Case No. 4/2013, pending in the court of the learned Munsiff, Bilasipara, Dhubri, shall remain suspended. 18. The parties themselves or through their respective counsel will appear before the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhubri, on 13.5.2015. The learned lower Appellate Court will dispose of the appeal afresh within a period of four months from the date of appearance of the parties. 19. Registry will send down the records forthwith.