JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a plaintiff's Second appeal against the judgment and decree of learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division dated 22.10.1973 who had dismissed the first appeal of the plaintiff-appellant which was against the judgment and decree of J.O. (R) A.C. Ist Class, Tanda, Faizabad, dated 27-4-1971 who had also dismissed the plaintiff's suit u/s 229-B of Act I of 1951. 2. The following pedigree is admitted by the parties:- 3. Original the suit was field by Ram Lal who died and was substituted by Sati Prasad. He had claimed declaration for being co-bhumidhar of the plot in suit with defendant Udit alleging that it was grove of the time of Suphali. After him Mohan was recorded in representative capacity then Udit was recorded in so that he had applied for inclusion of his name with Udit defendant but his application was filed by Consolidation Officer holding that no objection regarding grove lay in consolidation courts hence he had filed the suit. 4. The suit was contested by defendant Udit who also died and was substituted by his son Chhedi. He had contested the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 49 C.H. Act and further alleged that it was not acquired by Suphali and that even if Suphali had acquired it he was ejected them it was acquired by Mohan who used to live with him, that Manohar had pre-decreed Mohan, therefore, it was inherited by him and he is sole tenant of the plot in suit. 5. The trial court had dismissed the suit holding that it was barred by Section 49 of the C.H. Act and that defendant was sole bhumidhar. 6. The lower appellant court held that the suit was not barred by Section 49 of the C.H. Act but dismissed the suit on the basis of long standing entries in the name of Mohan then in the name of defendant Udit after entries in the name of Suphali in 1301 fasli and 1314 fasli. 7. I have perused the record and have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length 8. 7. I have perused the record and have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length 8. In my considered opinion the plaintiff is not barred by Section 49 of the C.H. Act as Ram Lal father of the present plaintiff had filed objection before Consolidation Officer who had referred the matter for arbitration and the arbitration had returned back the matter holding that C.H. Act did not then apply to groves and the Consolidation Officer ordered accordingly. Copies regarding it are no the file. The plaintiff had filed objection and if it was not decided by the consolidation courts he cannot be blamed and the barred of section 49 C.H. At cannot be held to apply to his case in these circumstances, therefore, the finding on this point of the learned Additional Commissioner is correct and is confirmed and the finding of the lower court regarding it is not correct and was rightly reversed by the learned Additional Commissioner. Now regarding the actual merits of the case I am pained to note that the lower appellate court did not apply its mind to the facts of the case and the evidence on record. He has dealt about merits of the cases only in paras 12 and 13 in a cursory way. He has not come to a clear finding that Suphali was ejected from the land in suit who was recorded in 1301 fasli and 1341 fasli who was admittedly the common ancestor of the parties. He has not dealt with the effect of the entries in the name of Suphali. He has not arrived to a conclusion that if Suphali was ejected the land in suit was acquired by Mohan alone the he has not arrived to a finding that Manohar had predeceased Mohan and that Udit and Mohan lived jointly and Manohar lived separately. As a matter of fact he had not discussed at all statements of P.Ws and D.Ws. about all these matters and had not discussed even paper entries. He did not deal the appeal as of a regular suit and appears to have dealt it as if he was dealing the matter in a case of correction of papers. In view of all these circumstances his finding cannot be considered to be based on proper appraisal of documentary and oral evidence of the parties and therefore his finding cannot be upheld. 9. In view of all these circumstances his finding cannot be considered to be based on proper appraisal of documentary and oral evidence of the parties and therefore his finding cannot be upheld. 9. Apparently, the learned lower appellate court in its anxiety to quickly dispose of the case did not very much care to go deep into the various points which presented themselves for a decision. It must be emphasised that the matter should not be hurried and buried with a view to dispose of the matter quickly skipping over importance point and turning out a poor quality of work merely with a view of quick disposal of cases at the cost of correct and judicial finding. The duty of the first court of appeal regarding decision of important fact involved in the case is very important. Proper evaluation of material points in dispute in adjudicating rights of the parties, more so when facts and evidence could no longer be questioned is second appeal, the function of the courts of first appeal becomes very important and the vital function to perform in finally shifting facts and evidence must be performed in earnest manner as its findings of facts are final which can be performed when it is performed in an earnest manner devoting greater time and attention to the consideration of the points in issue. 10. Having carefully considered the position, I find that it would be abundantly in the interest of justice if this appeal is reheard by the learned Additional Commissioner and all the matters in issue are decided again after full appraisal of documentary and oral evidence adduced by the parties. 11. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the order and finding and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and the appeal is remanded back to the learned Additional Commissioner for rehearing them to decide it as quickly as possible within six months. Costs shall abide the result.