JUDGMENT 1. Heard the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 2. This Second Appeal is filed challenging validity and legality of the Judgment and Order dt.6.3.2013 passed by the learned District Judge-9, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.486 of 2009, by which the first Appellate Judge held that the plaintiff has not paid the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant as a hand loan and hence, set aside the decree passed by the trial Court. The appeal arose from the Judgment and Order dt.19.8.2009 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.1 of 2002 by Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Kamptee, who had decreed the money suit finding that the plaintiff had issued a hand loan in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant for a period of two years by executing promissory note dt.26.11.1999 and the defendant failed to repay the loan amount as promised by him. The amount was to be repaid by 25.12.2001, but remained unpaid. Thus, the decree was passed directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of suit till realisation. 3. It is the grievance of the learned Counsel for the appellant that though money decree was passed by a reasoned judgment, but the first Appellate Court, without hearing submissions advanced on behalf of the original plaintiff, proceeded to set aside the decree and directed dismissal of the suit. The said contention that the present appellant was not heard by the first Appellate Court is seriously opposed on behalf of the respondent on the ground that the appeal which was dismissed in default of appearance in the first Appellate Court was restored and reheard. While, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the appeal was not reheard as the present appellant was not knowing about the proceeding for restoration and therefore, there was no question of rehearing of the appeal. 4. Instead of going into this controversy, I think that if record is produced, it shows that Regular Civil Suit No.1 of 2002 was decreed by the trial Court after considering the core issues as also the ruling cited before the trial Court in order to decree the suit granting the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- as also awarding interest on the aforesaid sum. While the first Appellate Court framed only two points i.e. 1) Whether the plaintiff had paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant as a hand loan ? and recorded finding to it in the negative and 2) What order and reliefs ? The first Appellate Court allowed the appeal and the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. 5. The first Appellate Court is expected to examine the controversy between the parties on merits as final Court on facts, particularly when the suit was decided on merits in the trial Court. Considering the core issues upon which evidence is led by the parties as also the rulings cited, the first Appellate Court appears to have found shortcut method by framing two points for determination to dismiss the suit while allowing the appeal. Considering the grievance that the appellant was not at all heard, looking to the larger interest of justice it would be appropriate that the appeal is heard on merits by giving full opportunity to the parties to advance their submissions on merits in respect of the trial Court Judgment. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned Judgment and Order dt.6.3.2013 passed by the District Judge-9, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.486 of 2009 is set aside. The learned first Appellate Court is directed to hear the Counsel representing the parties on merits of the case and on all the issues arising from pleadings in the case and then to decide the appeal in accordance with law. The instant Second Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Parties to appear before the first Appellate Court on 10.6.2014. The record and proceedings be sent back to the first Appellate Court.