JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - There are two second appeals of defendant against judgment and decree of the Ld. Additional Commissioner Meerut dated 16-12-1970 and 3-12-1970 deciding two connected appeals exparte in the absence of the defendant on the said date against the judgment and decree dated 15-7-1968 passed by Revenue Officer, Meerut, dismissing the plaintiff suit under dismissing the plaintiff suit under Section 229B/176 of Act I of 1951 in respect of bhumidhari Khata mentioned in schedule I. 2. Plaintiff respondent had filed suit under Sections 229B/176 regarding bhumidhari khata of Schedule I and sirdari khata of Schedule B claiming to be sisters son of Umrey, the last tenureholder of the plot in suit alleging that his mother Gyano was sister of Umrey who were sons and daughters of Shahmal. 3. The suits were contested by defendant appellant alleging that Smt. Gyano was not daughter of Shahmal and was not sister of Umrey and that Umrey had executed a will to the defendant on 9-11-1965 and he was tenant of the plots in suit. 4. The defendant's one appeal was dismissed and in the other the findings of the trial court were reversed and the orders by the first appellate court were passed ex parte. 5. The condonation application for filing these second appeals were allowed by Ld. Brother Sri. J.S. Gupta. Appeal No. 161 is against first appeal filed by the plaintiff and appeal No. 160 is against appeal filed by the defendant. In the latter the judgment and decree of the trial court was reversed and the first appeal of present appeal No. 161 was dismissed for default of the appellant. Restorations applications were dismissed and F.A. FO's were also dismissed then and these appeals were filed. 6. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 7. Both the appeals have been argued together and they are being disposal of together and this judgment shall govern both the appeals. A copy of the judgment shall be placed on the connected file. 8. The grounds of the restoration application or F.A. FOs cannot be considered for deciding these appeals. 9. 7. Both the appeals have been argued together and they are being disposal of together and this judgment shall govern both the appeals. A copy of the judgment shall be placed on the connected file. 8. The grounds of the restoration application or F.A. FOs cannot be considered for deciding these appeals. 9. The argument on behalf of the respondents that as the restoration applications and F.A.FO's against the orders of refusal restoring the first appeal or setting aside the exparte order were dismissed, therefore the orders of the Hon'ble Board in F.A. FO's were merged in the order of the first appeal therefore this second appeal is not maintainable has got no force because the remedy of a second appeals is quite distinct and separate from the remedy provided in Rule 19 of Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code and if a person fails in getting redress from the provision of order XLI Rule 19 of the C.P.C. he cannot be debarred from availing the second redress provided by the second appeal. The reliance placed on behalf of the the respondent on copy order dated 3-12-1970 in Special Writ Appeal No. 347 of 1970 is not well founded as the appeal against the restoration was dismissed subsequently on 3-8-1971. 10. In my considered opinion as the plaintiff may bring a fresh suit or court may restore suit to file as provided in Order IX Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code and both the remedies are distinct and separated and can be availed of by the plaintiff in my considered opinion if he fails to get the suit restored and his restorations are dismissed he is not debarred from availing the remedy of filing the fresh suit and in such case the fresh suit is not barred, Similarly where appellate fails to get the first appeal restored under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Code and F.A. FO. is also dismissed his right of filing second appeal is not barred. Therefore I hold that these second appeal are maintainable and are not barred. 11. The first ground taken by the Ld. counsel for the appellant that the first appellate court had on several dates ordered for notice to parties which were not complied with. Therefore the said exparte orders were not maintainable cannot be considered as restoration applications and F.A. FOs were dismissed. 12. 11. The first ground taken by the Ld. counsel for the appellant that the first appellate court had on several dates ordered for notice to parties which were not complied with. Therefore the said exparte orders were not maintainable cannot be considered as restoration applications and F.A. FOs were dismissed. 12. Regarding appeal No. 60 it has been rightly argued on behalf of the appellant that the first appellate court did not appraise evidence on record and did not appraise the findings of the trial court and did not give any reason for confirming the findings of the trial court. Regarding appeal No. 161 it has been rightly argued that the first appellate court did not consider the evidence of the witnesses examined by the parties or of the Expert, Sri Kashyap regarding comparison of the signature of the Umery on the disputed will and on the back of the affidavit in a criminal proceeding were not considered at all and were rather not read as the first appellate court wrongly held that Sri Kashyap had not compared the signatures on the two alleged documents and also further did not consider as to whether the scribe can be treated as an attesting witness or not as held to be so in A.I.R. 1934 Nagpur page 1 as held in case reported in 1979 A. W.C. page 23. In all these circumstances in my considered opinion the first appellate court did not act in writing the judgments in question as required by rules 37 and 38 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual and as required by Order XX Rules 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, therefore, in my considered opinion the judgment and decrees of the first appellate court of both the first appeals are liable to be set aside and the case is liable to be remanded in the interest of justice. 13. In view the above both these appeals are hereby allowed and judgments and decrees of the two Ist appeals are set aside and both the first appeals are hereby remanded to the court of Ld. Additional Commissioner, Meerut for fresh decision according to law. In view of the above circumstances parties shall bear their own costs.