J. N. BHATT, J. :, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the assistant Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj, on 5-2-1979, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 81 of 1977. ( 2 ) THE present appellant is the original plaintiff and the present respondent is the original defendant and they are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant for the sake of convenience. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit no. 77 of 1974 against the defendant for possession on the basis of title. The plaintiff, inter alia, contended that he is the owner of the land bearing Old Survey no. 153 (New Survey No. 337), admeasuring about 9 A. 20 Gs. , situated outside Ganga Naka, Anjar, in Kachchh district, which is hereinafter referred to as the suit land. According to the case of the plaintiff, the suit land was in his actual possession and under personal cultivation since more than 65 years. He contended that towards the west of the suit land there is a wall of petrol pump belonging to the defendant and the suit land was situated towards the east of the wall of the said petrol pump of the defendant. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant made encroachment in the suit land on 29-5-1972. Therefore, he preferred an application before the Deputy Collector, on 30-5-1972. The defendant went on making encroachment in the meantime in respect of the suit land, which is admeasuring about 2 gunthas. The defendant was requested to remove the encroachment but he did not remove it. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit. ( 4 ) THE defendant appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement, Ex. 22. He, inter alia, contended that the suit land was not forming part of the property belonging to the plaintiff bearing S. N. 153. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff is the owner and is holding the possession in respect of the suit land. According to the contention of the defendant, he had not made any encroachment in the suit land. In fact, according to the contention of the defendant, he is the owner of the suit land. Various other contentions were also raised. ( 5 ) IN view of the pleading of the parties, issues were settled, at Ex. 23. According to the contention of the defendant, he had not made any encroachment in the suit land. In fact, according to the contention of the defendant, he is the owner of the suit land. Various other contentions were also raised. ( 5 ) IN view of the pleading of the parties, issues were settled, at Ex. 23. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove the title over the suit land. The trial Court also found that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit land. As the trial Court found that there was no encroachment and the plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession in respect of the suit land, the suit came to be dismissed. ( 6 ) BEING dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid appeal. On appreciation of the evidence, the District court was pleased to dismiss the appeal hence this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("code" for short hereinafter ). ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contended that the first appellate Court committed serious error in dismissing the application at Ex. 14, preferred by the plaintiff under Order 41 rule 27 of the Code for production of additional evidence in the appellate Court. Having examined the order passed by the first appellate Court below Ex. 14, this court is satisfied that the order passed below Ex. 14 by the first appellate Court, is not only perverse but is illegal. As such, the order passed below Ex. 14 by the learned Assistant Judge, Kachchh, at bhuj, is not a speaking order. The order does not manifest as to why the prayer for production of additional evidence was disallowed. It was incumbent upon the appellate Court to seriously apply its mind and decide the merits of the application at Ex. 14 for production of additional evidence. Ex facie, the order passed below Ex. 14 by the learned Assistant judge in the first appeal, on 5-2-1979, radiates an imprint of non-application of mind not only to the application but to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code, and any order passed without application of mind is required to be set aside. Ex facie, the order passed below Ex. 14 by the learned Assistant judge in the first appeal, on 5-2-1979, radiates an imprint of non-application of mind not only to the application but to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code, and any order passed without application of mind is required to be set aside. Needless to mention that any judicial order passed by the competent authority or court must be a speaking one. It is very difficult to ascertain from the order passed below Ex. 14 as to what prompted the court to disallow the application for additional evidence in absence of any reasons. ( 8 ) THERE is one aspect which requires to be examined. In fact the courts below have committed an error of law in deciding the question of plaintiffs title and possession to the whole S. No. 153 (New S. No. 337) when the dispute raised by the plaintiff is limited to the encroachment over 2 gunthas of land out of the entire Survey number. Therefore, it appears that proper issues were also not framed. Whether the Trial Court should have decided the question of title contrary to the entry of the plaintiffs name as occupant in Ex. 41 under the bombay Inams (Kachchh Area) Abolition act, 1958, was also required to be thoroughly examined. Attention of the courts was not focused on this aspect. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ends of justice will be met if the matter is remitted back to the appellate Court with a direction to decide the application, ex. 14, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the code in the background of the facts and relevant provisions of the law and then to decide the appeal afresh. ( 10 ) IN the result, the matter is remanded to the first appellate Court with a direction to hear the merits of first appeal afresh after deciding the merits of the application, Ex. 14, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code, in the light of the aforesaid observations. The impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate Court are, therefore, set aside and the present appeal is allowed accordingly. The matter is sent back to the first appellate Court with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent/original defendant. 14, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code, in the light of the aforesaid observations. The impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate Court are, therefore, set aside and the present appeal is allowed accordingly. The matter is sent back to the first appellate Court with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent/original defendant. The appellant/plaintiff is directed to deposit the amount of cost in the lower appellate court and the respondent/original defendant will be at liberty to withdraw the said amount of cost irrespective of the decision of the first appeal after remand order is passed. ( 11 ) THE parties are directed to appeal before the first appellate Court, on 30-9-1991. Since this matter is very old, the first appellate Court is directed to accord priority to this matter and dispose it of as early as possible and not later than January 1992. .