JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant-plaintiff has laid this second appeal under Section 100 CPC to assail the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.07.2004 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand (for short, 'learned Lower Appellate Court'), whereby learned Lower Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19.08.1996 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nathdwara (for short, learned trial Court'). 2. The learned trial Court, by its judgment dated 19.08.1996, dismissed the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff for mandatory injunction after deciding all the issues against the appellant. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, appellant-plaintiff approached first Appellate Court and the first Appellate Court, while fully concurring with the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court, dismissed the appeal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on admission. 4. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court feels that the learned Lower Appellate Court has not thrashed out the matter in its entirety and has not even addressed on factual aspects of the matter, therefore, appeal is admitted on following substantial question of law:- (1) Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court, being the last Court of fact, has made sincere endeavour for reappraisal of evidence and the material available on record and rendered its judgment in accordance with Order 41, Rule 31 CPC? 5. As the appeal is pending since 2004, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally at this stage. 6. Upon examining the impugned judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court there remains no doubt that although learned Lower Appellate Court has recorded a concurrent finding against the appellant on all the issues but the fact of the matter is that the learned Lower Appellate Court has not at all bothered to discuss the evidence which was available on record. In substance, learned Lower Appellate Court has recorded simply its conclusions without recording cogent reasons for upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. In substance, learned Lower Appellate Court has recorded simply its conclusions without recording cogent reasons for upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. In that background, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in B.V. Nagesh and Another v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy reported in (2010) 13 SCC 530 , on which the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance, can very well be pressed into service wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Appellate Court is required to decide the first appeal, being the last Court of fact, strictly in accordance with Order 41, Rule 31 CPC and it is required to discuss the evidence which is available on record. 7. As the findings and conclusions of the learned Lower Appellate Court are not based on sound appreciation of evidence and the findings are per se based on ipse dixi of the learned Lower Appellate Court dehors the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 CPC, in my opinion, the aforementioned substantial question of law deserve to be answered in favour of appellant. 8. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to learned first appellate Court to decide appeal of the appellant afresh strictly in accordance with law. 9. Parties to the litigation shall maintain status quo till disposal of the first appeal by learned Lower Appellate Court. It is needless to observe that the learned Lower Appellate Court shall decide the appeal uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court in this judgment. 10. It is expected of the learned Lower Appellate Court to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible.Let record of the case be sent back to learned Lower Appellate Court forthwith.Appeal allowed. *******