As per case facts, the plaintiff initiated a suit for recovery of compensation for land acquired by the government for a special economic zone, alleging non-payment for certain schedule lands ... despite protests. The trial court dismissed the suit. Subsequently, the plaintiff appealed to the first appellate court, which allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's judgment, also permitting plaint amendment and additional evidence without proper reasoning or framing points for determination. The defendant no. 5, aggrieved by this decision, filed the present second appeal, arguing that the first appellate court failed to follow mandatory procedural rules, including framing points for determination and providing reasons for allowing interlocutory applications. The question arose whether the first appellate court was justified in setting aside the trial court's judgment, allowing plaint amendments and additional evidence, and remanding the matter without adhering to the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Order 41 Rule 31 and Order 6 Rule 17. Finally, the High Court held that the first appellate court's judgment was not legally sustainable as it failed to follow the mandatory provisions of procedural law, specifically Order 41 Rule 31 and Order 6 Rule 17. The court observed that the first appellate court did not frame points for determination, discuss evidence, or provide reasons for allowing the amendment and additional evidence applications. Therefore, the High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the first appellate court's judgment, and remanded the matter back to the first appellate court with a directive to frame the necessary points for determination, hear both parties, and dispose of the appeal on its merits within a specified period, ensuring a comprehensive and reasoned decision as required by law.