Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 322 (HP)

Joginder Singh v. State of H. P.

2017-04-07

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2006, passed by learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 32-NL/13 of 2006, reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.1.2006, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., in civil Suit No.9/1 of 2002, whereby suit of the plaintiff for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction came to be decreed. 2. Having regard to the nature of the order, this Court purposes to pass after examining the record as well as hearing the submissions having been advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, it may not be necessary to deal with the facts of the case save and except that the respondent/ plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant/ appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant), praying therein that the ejectment order Ex.P- 9, dated 30.6.2001, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade in case No.3 of 1999 and order Ex.P-13, dated 31.10.2001, passed by the Collector, Nalagarh in Appeal No.20-VIII/2001, may be declared wrong, illegal, null and void, inoperative, ineffective and incompetent against the mandatory provisions of law. 3. By way of aforesaid suit, plaintiff also claimed that he be declared owner in possession of the suit land measuring 0-18 biswas, bearing khasra No.618/152, situated in the area of village Dadi Kaniyan, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1996-97. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.1.2006, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and declared him to be owner in possession of the suit land measuring 0-18 biswas bearing khasra No.618/152. The learned trial Court also declared that the ejectment order dated 30.6.2001 and order of Collector dated 31.10.2001, are wrong, illegal, null and void. 4. Defendant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the passing of aforesaid decree, preferred an appeal under Section 96 CPC before the learned District Judge, Solan, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No.32-NL/13 of 2006. Learned District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2006, allowed the appeal having been preferred by the defendant and set-aside the judgment and decree dated 17.1.2006, passed by the learned trial Court. Learned District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2006, allowed the appeal having been preferred by the defendant and set-aside the judgment and decree dated 17.1.2006, passed by the learned trial Court. In the aforesaid background, appellants/plaintiff approached this Court by way of instant appeal, praying therein for setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court and restoring the judgment and decree passed of learned trial Court. 5. This Court vide order dated 28.5.2007, admitted the instant Regular Second Appeal, on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether there has been misreading of oral as well as documentary evidence in regard to the fact that plaintiff had become owner under the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act?. 2. Whether without initiating any enquiry under Rule 9 of the H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting & Utilization) Rules, 1975 and the provisions of Section 3(5) of the Act, 1974, eviction proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act could be initiated and could be said to be valid and whether such orders would affect the rights of the person in possession and whether on such orders, the affected person was entitled to the permanent injunction?. 6. While hearing the arguments having been advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court had an occasion to peruse the impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court, perusal whereof, clearly suggests that learned First Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and while differing with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, it has failed to assign its reasons for doing so. Learned First Appellate Court, after recording the brief facts of the case as well as submission having been made by the learned counsel for the parties, failed to examine the pleadings as well as evidence led on record by the respective parties viz-a-viz findings/reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court while allowing the suit having been filed by the plaintiff. Learned First Appellate Court, after recording the brief facts of the case as well as submission having been made by the learned counsel for the parties, failed to examine the pleadings as well as evidence led on record by the respective parties viz-a-viz findings/reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court while allowing the suit having been filed by the plaintiff. Perusal of the evidence, more particularly documentary evidence available on record clearly suggest that the plaintiff in support of his contentions as raised in the plaint, placed reliance on the oral as well as ample documentary evidence, but, it appears that learned First Appellate Court failed to take note of the same and merely on the basis of one document i.e.Ex.P-15 proceeded to hold that entry with respect of possession of the plaintiff in the revenue record has been with respect to two bighas seven biswas of land denoted by khasra Nos.653/152/5 and 655/152/11. 7. This Court after carefully examining the material available on record has no hesitation to conclude that learned First Appellate Court while returning the aforesaid findings on the basis of Ex.P-15, has miserably failed to take note of pleadings of the parties, wherein apparently dispute is/was with regard to land allotted to the plaintiff by the Gram Panchayat Kirpalpur vide resolution Ex.P-1, dated 20.9.1970. Since, this Court after being satisfied that learned First Appellate Court has failed to address itself to all issues and decide the same by giving reasons in support of such findings, intends to remand the case back to learned First Appellate Court for deciding afresh and as such, has purposely avoided to make any findings/observations qua the evidence, be it ocular or documentary available on record. Perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court clearly suggests that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as many as seven issues were framed and decided the same on the basis of the evidence led on record. But unfortunately, learned First Appellate Court has not dealt with all issues and merely passed its findings on one document Ex.P-15. Otherwise, also careful perusal of para-8 of the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court itself suggests that learned First Appellate Court has returned contradictory findings while placing reliance on Ex.P-15. 8. But unfortunately, learned First Appellate Court has not dealt with all issues and merely passed its findings on one document Ex.P-15. Otherwise, also careful perusal of para-8 of the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court itself suggests that learned First Appellate Court has returned contradictory findings while placing reliance on Ex.P-15. 8. It is well settled that first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and parties have right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons in support of such findings. This Court is unable to find any reason much less cogent and convincing reasons assigned by the learned first appellate Court while differing with the findings returned by the learned trial Court. It is always open for the learned first appellate court to take different view on question of facts after adverting to the reasons given by the trial Court in arriving at findings in question. Court of first appeal must cover all important questions involved in the case and they should not be general and vague. Moreover, when first appellate court reserves findings of trial Court, it is expected to record findings in clear terms, specifically stating therein, in what manner, reasoning of trial court is erroneous. In this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Laliteshwar Prasad Singh versus S.P. Srivastava reported in (2017) 2 SCC 415 , wherein, it has been held as under:- “13. An appellate court is the final court of facts. The judgment of the appellate court must therefore reflect court’s application of mind and record its findings supported by reasons. The law relating to powers and duties of the first appellate court is well fortified by the legal provisions and judicial pronouncements. Considering the nature and scope of duty of first appellate court, in Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar (2015) 1 SCC 391 , it was held as under:- “12. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 , this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 188- 89, para 15) “15. … The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 , this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 188- 89, para 15) “15. … The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. … while reversing a finding of fact the appellate court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it.” The above view has been followed by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Madhukar v. Sangram (2001) 4 SCC 756 , wherein it was reiterated that sitting as a court of first appeal, it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. 13. In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (2005) 10 SCC 243 , this Court stated as under: (SCC p. 244, para 3) “3. The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title.” 14. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa (2005) 12 SCC 303 , while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 303, para 2) 15. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa (2005) 12 SCC 303 , while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 303, para 2) 15. Again in B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy (2010) 13 SCC 530 , this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words: (SCC pp. 530-31, paras 3-5) “3. How the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate court/High Court has been considered by this Court in various decisions. Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state: (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 , SCC p. 188, para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram (2001) 4 SCC 756 SCC p. 758, para 5.) 5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In our view, the judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our careful perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of both parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and remand the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.” 14. The points which arise for determination by a court of first appeal must cover all important questions involved in the case and they should not be general and vague. Even though the appellate court would be justified in taking a different view on question of fact that should be done after adverting to the reasons given by the trial judge in arriving at the finding in question. When appellate court agrees with the views of the trial court on evidence, it need not restate effect of evidence or reiterate reasons given by trial court; expression of general agreement with reasons given by trial court would ordinarily suffice. However, when the first appellate court reverses the findings of the trial court, it must record the findings in clear terms explaining how the reasoning of the trial court is erroneous.” 9. Careful perusal of law, as referred above, clearly suggests that first appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial Court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law and as such, judgment of the appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and must record findings supported by reasons on all the issues arising from the pleadings of the parties. In the instant case, record made available to this Court clearly suggest that plaintiff in support of his claim placed reliance upon as much as 16 documents i.e. Ex.P-1 to P-16, which were also taken note of by the learned trial Court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, but as has been noticed above, learned first appellate Court while accepting the appeal preferred by the defendant has failed even to refer these documents in the judgment, which action of the learned first appellate Court certainly compels this Court to draw an inference that there is non application of mind while passing the judgment in appeal. Once, learned first appellate court proceeded to reverse the findings returned by the learned trial Court, it must have recorded reasons while differing with the findings assigned by the learned trial Court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 10. Issues, as were framed by the learned trial Court certainly suggests that it required proper analysis of evidence led on record by the respective parties. This court sees substantial force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiff that there is no attempt to appreciate the evidence adduced on record by the parties. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court that first appellate court being last fact finding court is bound to take into consideration all issues raised in the appeal and decide the same by giving cogent and convincing reasoning. In the instant case, learned first appellate Court has failed to exercise its power under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC because first appeal is valuable right of the appellant and as such, matter needs to be decided afresh by the learned first appellate Court. 11. After carefully examining the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court, it can be safely concluded that learned first appellate court failed to discuss the evidence, assign reasons for its conclusion and has passed cryptic order. Keeping in view the controversy involved in the matter, learned first appellate Court ought to have appreciated entire evidence led on record by the respective parties in its proper perspective and then recorded findings regarding the claim of the plaintiff qua the suit land. Keeping in view the controversy involved in the matter, learned first appellate Court ought to have appreciated entire evidence led on record by the respective parties in its proper perspective and then recorded findings regarding the claim of the plaintiff qua the suit land. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shasidhar and others versus Ashwini Uma Mathad and another (2015) 11 SCC 269 , wherein it has been held as under:- “10. The powers of the first appellate Court, while deciding the first appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code, are indeed well defined by various judicial pronouncements of this Court and are, therefore, no more res integra. 11. As far back in 1969, the learned Judge - V.R. Krishna Iyer, J (as His Lordship then was the judge of Kerala High Court) while deciding the first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in Kurian Chacko vs. Varkey Ouseph, AIR 1969 Kerala 316, reminded the first appellate Court of its duty as to how the first appeal under Section 96 should be decided. In his distinctive style of writing and subtle power of expression, the learned judge held as under: (SCC Online Ker Paras 1-3) "1. The plaintiff, unsuccessful in two Courts, has come up here aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit which was one for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's title to the property as also his possession and claimed both in himself. The learned Munsif, who tried the suit, recorded findings against the plaintiff both on title and possession. But, in appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge disposed of the whole matter glibly and briefly, in a few sentences. 2. An appellate court is the final Court of fact ordinarily and therefore a litigant is entitled to a full and fair and independent consideration of the evidence at the appellate stage. Anything less than this is unjust to him and I have no doubt that in the present case the learned Subordinate Judge has fallen far short of what is expected of him as an appellate Court. 3. Although there is furious contest between the counsel for the appellant and for the respondent, they appear to agree with me in this observation....."(Emphasis supplied) 12. 3. Although there is furious contest between the counsel for the appellant and for the respondent, they appear to agree with me in this observation....."(Emphasis supplied) 12. This Court in a number of cases while affirming and then reiterating the aforesaid principle has laid down the scope and powers of the first appellate Court under Section 96 of the Code. We consider it apposite to refer to some of the decisions. 16. In Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 , this Court held as under: ( SCC pp 188-189) 15.".........the appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court......while reversing a finding of fact the appellate court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it............" The above view has been followed by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Madhukar & Ors. v. Sangram & Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 756 , wherein it was reiterated that sitting as a court of first appeal, it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. 14. In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith, (2005) 10 SCC 243 , this Court stated as under (SCC p. 244,para-3): "3. The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title." 15. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa (2005) 12 SCC 303 , while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code this Court observed as follows: (SCC pp. 303, para 2) "2. A court of first appeal can reappreciate the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion........." 16. Again in B.V Nagesh vs. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530 , this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words: (SCC pp.530-31, paras 305) "3. How the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate court/High Court has been considered by this Court in various decisions. Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state: (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 at p. 188, para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram, (2001) 4 SCC 756 at p. 758, para 5.) 5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In our view, the judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our careful perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of both parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and remand the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law." 17. The aforementioned cases were relied upon by this Court while reiterating the same principle in State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Emmsons International Ltd. & Anr., (2011) 12 SCC 174 . This Court has recently taken the same view on similar facts arising in Vinod Kumar vs. Gangadhar, 2015 (1) SCC 391 . 18. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the case, we find that the High Court while deciding the first appeal failed to keep the aforesaid principle in consideration and rendered the impugned decision. Indeed, it is clear by mere reading of the impugned order quoted below: (Shasidhar case 2012 SCC Online Kar 8774). “1.The appellants are defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs are the respondents. The respondents are the children of the 1st appellant born in the wedlock between 1st appellant and his divorced wife Smt. Uma Mathad. Indeed, it is clear by mere reading of the impugned order quoted below: (Shasidhar case 2012 SCC Online Kar 8774). “1.The appellants are defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs are the respondents. The respondents are the children of the 1st appellant born in the wedlock between 1st appellant and his divorced wife Smt. Uma Mathad. It is admitted fact that the 1st appellant has married the 2nd respondent after the divorce and in the wedlock he has two children and they are appellant Nos.3 and 4. The suit properties at item Nos.1 and 4 are admitted to be the ancestral properties. Item Nos.2 and 3 are the properties belonging to the mother of the 1st appellant and after her demise the said properties are bequeathed to the 1st appellant. Therefore, the said properties acquired the status of self-acquired properties. 2. The respondents filed a suit for partition. The parties are governed by Bombay School of Hindu Law. In view of the provisions of Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 2005, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to a share as co-parceners in the ancestral properties. The wife who is the second appellant also would be entitled to a share in the partition. In that view, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 will have 1/4th share each in item Nos.1 and 4 of the suit properties. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants 2 to 4 would not claim any independent share in items 1 and 4 of the suit properties, but they would take share in the 1/4th share allotted to their father. 4. In view of the said submissions, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 would be entitled to 1/4th share in item Nos.1 and 4 of the suit properties. 5. Accordingly, a preliminary decree to be drawn and the appeal and cross objections are disposed of in the terms indicated above." 19. 4. In view of the said submissions, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 would be entitled to 1/4th share in item Nos.1 and 4 of the suit properties. 5. Accordingly, a preliminary decree to be drawn and the appeal and cross objections are disposed of in the terms indicated above." 19. In our considered opinion, the High Court did not deal with any of the submissions urged by the appellants and/or respondents nor it took note of the grounds taken by the appellants in grounds of the appeal nor took note of cross objections filed by the plaintiffs under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code and nor made any attempt to appreciate the evidence adduced by the parties in the light of the settled legal principles and decided case laws applicable to the issues arising in the case with a view to find out as to whether the judgment of the trial Court can be sustained or not and if so, how, and if not, why? “12. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as salutary principles, as have been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred hereinabove, this Court is of the view that learned First Appellate Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it being a First appellate Court. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of both the parties, impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court is quashed and set-aside and the case is remanded back to the learned first appellate Court with the direction to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. While passing the aforesaid judgment, this Court has not passed any order on the merits of the case and as such, any observations made in the process of passing of this judgment may not be construed as opinion of this Court, especially qua the issues involved in the present controversy. The learned first appellate Court may decide the case afresh without being influenced by any of the observation made in the present judgment passed by this Court. 13. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 21.4.2017. The learned first appellate Court may decide the case afresh without being influenced by any of the observation made in the present judgment passed by this Court. 13. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 21.4.2017. Since, the parties are litigating in the Court of law since 2002, learned First Appellate Court is expected to decide the matter within a period of six months from the date of passing of this judgment. The record of the learned trial Court be returned back forthwith to enable the learned First Appellate Court to do the needful in terms of the instant judgment. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.