JUDGMENT : MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. M. Bhat, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 in all the appeals as well as Ms. P. Pengu, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent. 2. By this common judgment, this Court intend to dispose of the above mentioned 10 numbers of Regular Second Appeal as the facts and the question involved in all the appeals are similar. 3. Considering the similarity of the facts involved in all the above-mentioned appeals, there was a unanimity at the bar at the time of hearing of the appeals also that all the appeals may be heard together and may be disposed of by a common judgment. 4. It is also pertinent to mention herein that common substantial questions were raised in all the aforesaid appeals and they were heard together. Moreover, the appellants as well as the respondents in all the above mentioned appeals were represented by the same set of lawyers on both sides. 5. All the Appeals under consideration were filed by the appellants, namely, (1) Chief Post Master General, North Eastern Circle, Shillong, (2) Director of Postal Services, Arunachal Pradesh Division, and (3) Sub Post Master, R. K. Mission Post Office, Itanagar, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, impugning the judgments of the First Appellate Court i.e., the Court of the learned District Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia, whereby the judgments and decree of the Trial Courts, all the cases under consideration, were affirmed. 6. To state, briefly: A. In the Regular Second Appeal No.2 of 2019, the appellants have impugned the judgment dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge West Session Division, Yupia in Money Appeal No. 22/2017 (YPA), whereby the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yupia on 28.02.2017 in Money Suit No. 22/2015 was affirmed, the suit was decreed by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 3,78,000/- from the defendants with an interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the plaint till realization. 3,78,000/- from the defendants with an interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the plaint till realization. B. In the RSA No. 3 of 2019, the appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia in Money Appeal No. 23/2017 (YPA), whereby the judgment of the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yupia on 28.02.2017 in Money Suit No. 23/2015 for an amount of Rs. 4,41,000/- along with an interest of 8% per annum was affirmed. C. In the RSA No. 4 of 2019, the appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia in Money Appeal No. 15/2017 (YPA), whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yupia on 28.02.2017 in Money Suit No. 04/2015 for an amount of Rs. 4,59,000/- along with an interest of 8% per annum was affirmed. D. In the RSA No. 5 of 2019, the appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia in Money Appeal No. 17/2017 (YPA), whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yupia on 28.02.2017 in Money Suit No. 06/2015 for an amount of Rs. 2,97,000/- along with an interest of 8% per annum was affirmed. E. In the RSA No. 6 of 2019, the appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia in Money Appeal No. 18/2017 (YPA), whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yupia on 28.02.2017 in Money Suit No. 07/2015 for an amount of Rs. 3,24,000/- along with an interest of 8.4% per annum was affirmed. F. In the RSA No. 7 of 2019, the appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge West Sessions Division, Yupia in Money Appeal No. 21/2017 (YPA), whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yupia on 28.02.2017 in Money Suit No. 21/2015 for an amount of Rs. 4,11,700/- along with an interest of 8% per annum was affirmed. G. In the RSA No. 8 of 2019, the appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia in Money Appeal No. 14/2017 (YPA), whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yupia on 28.02.2017 in Money Suit No. 03/2015 for an amount of Rs. 4,86,000/- along with an interest of 8% per annum was affirmed. H. In the RSA No. 9 of 2019, the appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia in Money Appeal No. 20/2017 (YPA), whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yupia on 28.02.2017 in Money Suit No. 09/2015 for an amount of Rs. 3,33,000/- along with an interest of 8% per annum was affirmed. I. In the RSA No. 10 of 2019, the appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge West Siang, Yupia in Money Appeal No. 19/2017 (YPA), whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yupia on 28.02.2017 in Money Suit No. 08/2015 for an amount of Rs. 3,15,000/- along with an interest of 8% per annum was affirmed. J. In the RSA No. 11 of 2019, the appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia in Money Appeal No. 13/2017 (YPA), whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yupia on 28.02.2017 in Money Suit No. 02/2015 for an amount of Rs. 3,24,000/- along with an interest of 8.4% per annum was affirmed. K. In the RSA No. 12 of 2019, the appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia in Money Appeal No. 16/2017 (YPA), whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yupia on 28.02.2017 in Money Suit No. 05/2015 for an amount of Rs. 4,32,000/- along with an interest of 8% per annum was affirmed. 7. 4,32,000/- along with an interest of 8% per annum was affirmed. 7. In all the aforementioned cases, the plaintiff had filed the money suit for recovery of money from the defendants for the deposit made by the plaintiffs with the Postal Department. The money was deposited by the plaintiffs under Post Office Recurring Deposit Schemes through the authorized agents who were appointed for promotion of small savings under post office recurring deposit schemes. 8. In all the Money Suits, summonses were issued to the defendants, however, in spite of due service of summons on all the defendants the defendant Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 failed to file any written statement and suit proceeded ex-parte against them whereas defendant Nos. 2 and 6 appeared in all the cases and contested the suits by filing written statement wherein they had denied the claim of the plaintiffs. 9. In all the suits following common issues were framed: i. Whether the defendants are liable to return the monthly recurring deposits along with the accrued interest to the plaintiff which has been collected by their duly licensed authorized agents. ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree in respect of the claimed amount in the plaint being monthly recurring deposit which includes 8% interest per annum as per terms and conditions agreed by the plaintiff and the defendants or not. iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get further interest at the rate of 18% per annum of monthly deposited amount during pendency of the suit. 10. During hearing of the Money Suit filed by the respective plaintiffs, evidence was adduced for the plaintiff side and documents were exhibited in support of the contentions made by the plaintiff side. The contesting defendants Nos. 2 and 6 adduced no evidence. 11. After completion of the trial, all the Money Suits were decreed against defendant Nos.1, 3, 4& 5 for decretal amounts mentioned in the forgoing paragraphs with an interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization 12. Being agreed by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in the aforementioned Money Suits, the appellants, mentioned in paragraph No.5hereinabove, preferred the Money Appeals against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court before the Court of learned District Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia. Being agreed by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in the aforementioned Money Suits, the appellants, mentioned in paragraph No.5hereinabove, preferred the Money Appeals against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court before the Court of learned District Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia. Thereafter, by the judgments and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in all the abovementioned Money Appeals, the appellants have preferred the present set of Regular Second Appeal. 13. Considering the similarity of the issues involved in all the aforementioned appeals, they were heard together and common order sheets were maintained in respect of the aforementioned appeals since 24.11.2021. 14. At the time of admission of the aforesaid appeal following substantial question of law was formulated on 23.09.2019 in all the aforesaid Regular Second Appeals:“Whether the learned Court below erred in law in decreeing the suit for an amount of (decretal amount) without considering the Exhibit No. P-11, in the absence of admissible proof/evidence of such an amount being deposited by the respondent No.1 in his recurring deposit account (The account Nos. mentioned)”. 15. Thereafter, on 23.03.2023, on the prayer of learned counsel for the appellants, this Court again formulated following substantial questions of law: i. Whether the learned lower appellate Court erred in law in dismissing the appeal by applying the provisions of Section 96(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? ii. Whether the learned Trail Court erred in law decreeing the suit of the plaintiff without following provision of Order VII Rule 17 read with Order 13 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure? iii. Whether the learned Court below erred in law in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff without considering the provision of law that mere exhibiting documents is not the prove of the same? iv. Whether the learned lower appellate court erred in law without considering the provision of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 16. However, on the day of the final hearing of the appeals i.e., on 22.08.2024, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the substantial question of law which were formulated on 23.09.2023 needs to be re-formulated so as to bring more clarity on the point to be adjudicated by this Court in the present set of Regular Second Appeals. 16. However, on the day of the final hearing of the appeals i.e., on 22.08.2024, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the substantial question of law which were formulated on 23.09.2023 needs to be re-formulated so as to bring more clarity on the point to be adjudicated by this Court in the present set of Regular Second Appeals. Thereafter, following substantial question of law were re-formulated by this Court on 22.08.2024, namely, i. Whether the Trial Court erred in law in discarding the suit of the plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, considering the provision of Order 8 Rule 10 of the said code as well as Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. ii. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in law in dismissing the first appeal by applying the provision of Section 94 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? iii. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in law by not passing the judgment of the first appeal as per provision of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? 17. Mr. S. K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in all the Money Suits involved in the present bunch of appeals, proceeded ex-parte against the present appellants as they failed to file written statement in any of the suits. 18. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though, the appellants failed to file the written statement, however, the Trial Court was required to scrutinize the pleadings and the evidence of record and thereafter, ought to have adjudicated the points for determination framed by it. 19. The learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that in the Money Suits, the plaintiffs have annexed as Annexure-11, to the plaint a letter written by the plaintiff to the Director of Postal Services, Arunachal Pradesh Division, Itanagar for release of genuine recurring deposit amount, which was much lesser than the amount decreed by the Trial Court in the respective suits. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that when the documents, which is annexed as Annexure-11 shows that the genuine recurring deposit made by the plaint was much less than the amount claimed by the plaintiffs, the Trial Court had erred in not taking into consideration the said documents and decreeing the suit for a much higher amount on the basis of pass books submitted by the plaintiffs. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that on failure of the appellants/defendants to file their written statement the Trial Court acted mechanically and pronounced the judgment ignoring the documents/material available on record violating the mandate of Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on failure of defendant to file written statement, the Court can either pronounce judgment against the defendant or pass such order as it thinks fit. It is submitted that while doing so the Trial Court may not ignore the materials available on record, only because the fact that the suit proceeded ex-parte. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the learned Trial Court also failed to take into consideration that the Recurring Deposit Pass Books of the plaintiffs, on the basis of which the suits were decreed were not duly proved in accordance with the provisions of Order 13 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the corresponding records of the respective accounts maintained by the Postal Department were not produced during the trial neither the same were exhibited. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that there has been violation of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the plaintiffs have not annexed the entire copy of their Recurring Deposit Pass Books along with plaint at the time of filing of plaint and only two pages of the said Recurring Deposit Pass Books were filed along with plaint. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the Trial Court also flouted the provision of the Order 7 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by not producing the original Recurring Deposit Pass Books. 24. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the Trial Court also flouted the provision of the Order 7 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by not producing the original Recurring Deposit Pass Books. 24. The learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the First Appellate Court had erred in dismissing the appeals on the ground that the appellants have not raised in substantial question of law as provided under 96 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He submits that Section 96 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is applicable only in case of a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by the Court of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed Rs.10,000/-. However, in the instant case in all the above mentioned 10 money suits the value of the subject matter, i.e., the money claimed to have been deposited by the plaintiffs in the recurring deposits with the Postal Department is more than Rs.10,000/- and hence, it is submitted that the First Appellate Court had erred in deciding the second point for determination in the impugned judgments passed in all the first appeals. 25. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the First Appellate Court also erred in not complying with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in as much as no point for determination was formulated by the First Appellate Court regarding non-consideration the material on record by the Trial Court while decreeing the suit ex-parte against the present appellants. 26. In respect of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants has cited the following rulings: i. “Sukhdev Rai Vs. Ashok Kumar Rai and Others” reported in (2004) 3 GLR 248 ii. “Balraj Taneja and Other Vs. Sunil and Other” reported in (1999) 8 SCC 396 27. On the other hand, Mr. M. Batt, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellants who have preferred the present bunch of Regular Second Appeals had failed to contest the respective Money Suits before the learned Trial Court in spite of the fact that they were given several opportunities to file the written statements. However, they failed to file a written statement. 28. M. Batt, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellants who have preferred the present bunch of Regular Second Appeals had failed to contest the respective Money Suits before the learned Trial Court in spite of the fact that they were given several opportunities to file the written statements. However, they failed to file a written statement. 28. He has also submitted that the Trial Court had correctly decree the suit of the plaintiff on the basis of evidence adduced by the plaintiffs during the trial. 29. He further submits that while considering the instant bunch of second appeal the High Court has to confine itself only to the substantial question of law formulated by it and it is not open for the High Court to re-appreciate at the stage of second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 30. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the First Appellate Court had complied with the Provision of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by framing points for determinations in all the first appeals and thereafter, deciding the said points of merit. 31. He also submits that the Trial Court did not flouted the Provision of Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it had decreed all the Money Suits on the basis of entries made in the Recurring Deposit Pass Books of the plaintiffs, which were issued by the defendants. 32. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Trial Court had not passed the decrees in the aforesaid money suits without the scrutinizing the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. 33. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that as the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs during the trial could not be contradicted even by the contesting defendants i.e., State of Arunachal Pradesh as well as the Director of Small Savings, Government of Arunachal Pradesh by cross-examining the witness and by impeaching the credibility of the evidence adducted by the plaintiffs during trial. 34. 34. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that as the suit proceeded ex-parte against the appellant and as no questions were raised during the trial, regarding the admissibility of any evidence/documents, the Trial Court did not erred in decreeing of the Money Suits relying on the said evidence. 35. He also submits that the letter referred to by learned counsel for the appellants as Annexure-11 were filed only in 6 out of 10 Money Suits under consideration. He submits that as the Postal Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh had taken the stand that lesser amount was credited against the recurring deposit account of the plaintiff as claimed by them and as the Postal Department has admitted the said amount, as genuinely deposited by the plaintiffs, some of the plaintiffs in some of the aforesaid Money Suits prayed for releasing at least that amount, which was admitted by the Postal Department to have been deposited by the plaintiffs. 36. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that merely by filing the aforesaid application for release of the said amount, which is admitted by the Postal Department to have been deposited the plaintiffs, they have not waived the remaining amount and the Trial Court was correct in decreeing the suit after verifying the actual deposit made by the plaintiffs from entries in the Recurring Deposit Pass Books exhibited by plaintiffs. 37. The learned counsel for the respondent has, therefore, submitted that no substantial question of law as was formulated by this Court as substantial question No.1 is involved in the instant bunch of appeals. 38. Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly admitted that the provision of Section 94 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not applicable in this case as the said provision is applicable only to the decrees of Court of Small Causes, that too, where the value of subject matter does not exceed beyond Rs. 10,000/-, which is not the case in the instant appeals. However, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the first appeals were not dismissed merely on that ground, but also on other grounds mentioned in the impugned judgments. 10,000/-, which is not the case in the instant appeals. However, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the first appeals were not dismissed merely on that ground, but also on other grounds mentioned in the impugned judgments. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that even if, this substantial question of law is decided against the findings of the First Appellate Courts, the impugned judgments need not to be interfered only on that count as it not affected the final outcomes in all the first appeals filed by the present appellants. 39. It is submitted that this Court has to exercise its jurisdiction of interfering with the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court only if same is required for the ends of justice and it comes to a finding that by not doing so injustice would be perpetuated. 40. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that as regards to the substantial question of law No. 3 formulated by this Court, the First Appellate Court has complied with the provision of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in letter and spirit and same needs no interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 41. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials on record including the case record of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in all the above mentioned appeals under consideration. I have also considered the rulings cited by learned counsel for the rival parties in support of their contentions. 42. It appears that in this bunch of second appeals, under consideration in all the cases, the plaintiff had filed Money Suit before the Trial Court for realization of the money deposited by them in recurring deposit schemes in the R. K. Mission Post Office, Itanagar, through the authorized agents, who were appointed for promotion of small savings under Post Office Recurring Deposit Schemes. 43. 43. Though, the appellants failed to contest any of the Money Suits by filing the written statement, however, it is the stand of the appellants that for certain months, the money claimed to have been deposited by the plaintiffs have not been credited in their accounts as same was tendered through the agents, who might not have deposited the said amount in the post office. However, the claim of the plaintiffs is that the recurring deposit pass books issued to them by the defendants shows the actual amount of deposit made by them and it appears that the Trial Court had relied on the said Recurring Deposit Pass Books, which were exhibited by the plaintiffs in their respective Money Suits and after verifying the actual deposit made by the plaintiffs as reflected in the pass books, the Trial Court decreed the respective Money Suit only to the extent of the actual deposits made by the plaintiffs. 44. The plea of the appellants that out of the total deposits claimed to have been made by the plaintiffs, for some months money has not been credited in their account, could not be proved by the appellants as they had failed to file any written statements and adduce any evidence to that effect. 45. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Annexure-11 to the plaint in some of the Money Suits is the letter filed by the plaintiffs for withdrawal of the deposit made by them to the extent, which was admitted by the defendants to have actually deposited by the plaintiffs. However, it may not be construed that by filing the said annexure, the plaintiffs have admitted that they are entitled only to the money admitted by the defendants and not to the amount claimed by them in their respective plaints. 46. As the appellants failed to plead anything in respect of the said annexures by filing written statement before the Trial Court and as the Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree had relied upon the Recurring Deposit Pass Books of the respective plaintiffs, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court had considered the pleadings as well as evidence, which was before it and this is not a case where the Trial Court had the decreed the suits mechanically without there being any basis for the same on record. 47. 47. Moreover, at the stage of second appeal, it would not be proper for this Court to embark upon the task of re-appreciation of evidence and disturb the concurrent findings of the First Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court. On perusal of the impugned judgments of the Trial Court, it would appear that the suits were decreed on the basis of entries made in the Recurring Deposit Pass Books of the plaintiffs, which were duly exhibited by them during the trial and was not objected to by either the present appellants or by the contesting defendants. 48. The materials on record, therefore, suggests that the respective Money Suits of the plaintiffs were decreed not merely on the basis of the implied admission under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the defendants, who failed to contest the suits, but also on the basis of entries made in the Recurring Deposit Pass Books, which were exhibited by the plaintiffs during the trial in the respective Money Suits filed by them. 49. Regarding the plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is non-compliance of the Provision of Order 13 Rule 5 as well as Order 7 Rule 14 and Order 7 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it appears that no such plea was taken by the appellants either before the First Appellate Court or before the Trial Court. Moreover, on perusal of the records of the Trial Court, which are available before this Court, it appears that the plaintiffs had produced the original Recurring Deposit Pass Books before the Trial Court during the trial. Hence, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding not following the aforesaid provisions during the trial is not tenable in law and this Court is not inclined to entertain such a plea at the stage of second appeal for disturbing the concurrent findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 50. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that this case does not involves the first substantial question of law as formulated by this Court regarding non-compliance of the provision of Order 8 Rule 5 read with Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as well as Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Code. 51. 50. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that this case does not involves the first substantial question of law as formulated by this Court regarding non-compliance of the provision of Order 8 Rule 5 read with Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as well as Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Code. 51. As regards the second substantial question of law formulated regarding the non-applicability of the provision contained in Section 96 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, there is no dispute at the Bar that value of the subject matter of the Money Suits involved in present bunch of second appeal exceeds Rs.10,000/- and it is not from a decree in a suit of the nature cognizable by Court of Small Causes, hence, the Provision of Section 96(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is apparently not applicable in this case. However, it also appears that the First Appellate Court did not dismiss the first appeals merely on this point, but also on other points for determination formulated by it. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if, this substantial question of law is answered in affirmative, it would not justify interfering with the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court regarding the liability of the appellants to pay the decretal amount to the plaintiffs as directed by the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that the finding on the said question would not affect the outcome of the impugned judgments in the first appeals under consideration. Hence, no interference with the impugned judgments is warranted on that count. 52. As regards the other substantial question of law is concerned, on a cursory perusal of the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court, it appears that the points for determination were formulated in each of the impugned judgment and decision thereon was given after giving the reasons for the decisions arrived at. Hence, apparently there appears to be no transgression of the requirement of the Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the impugned judgments of the First Appellate Court. 53. Hence, apparently there appears to be no transgression of the requirement of the Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the impugned judgments of the First Appellate Court. 53. Moreover, as discussed hereinbefore that the Trial Court have decreed the Money Suits of the plaintiffs not merely on the basis of implied admission of the defendants, but also on the basis of the entries made in the Recurring Deposit Pass Books of the plaintiffs, which were exhibited during trial in each of the Money Suits. Hence, the impugned judgments of the Trial Court as well as of the First Appellate Court may not be regarded as perverse, justifying any interference by this Court, in the present bunch of Regular Second Appeals. 54. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law as formulated by this Court is involved in the present bunch of second appeals justifying any interference in the impugned judgments of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 55. The appellants have tried to raise disputed questions of facts, in these Regular Second Appeals, without raising the same before the Trial Court, which under the facts and circumstances of the cases under consideration and for the limitations provided under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court does not intend to delve into and disturb the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 56. For the reasons discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, all the Regular Second Appeals under consideration, are accordingly, dismissed with cost. 57. Prepare decree, accordingly. 58. Send back the records of the Trial Courts as well as the First Appellate Courts to the concerned Courts.