[3.0] Shri Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the appellants – plaintiffs, contended that the learned first appellate Court, which is supposed to re-appreciate the evidence not only on facts but also on law, has miserably failed to even frame proper issues for determination of the Appeal. Not only that, the learned first appellate Court has not even considered the arguments advanced in support of the Appeal. The answer to the arguments canvassed must be reflected from the decision of the learned first appellate Court. In his submission, reading the whole judgment, there is no whisper about his argument being considered after re-appreciating the evidence adduced and documents produced. Not only that, the precedents cited before him had not been considered at all by the learned appellate Judge. He has further contended that, as such, there is no decision in Appeal except expressing the view that the reasons assigned and the conclusion reached by the learned trial Court is fair and legal and hence the learned appellate Court has shed off all his liability to assign fresh reasons and his opinion after considering the arguments to the evidence led in the suit. He has further contended that on reading the judgment of the learned appellate Court, without looking at the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, prima facie, it may appear that these are the reasons assigned by the learned appellate Court after re-appreciating the evidence on facts as well as on law. However, if the judgment of the learned appellate Court is seen keeping in juxta position
