Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2006, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.102-I/XIII/2005, affirming the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2005, passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division), Indora, District Kangra, in Civil Suit No.195/01/04, whereby suit of the plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction was decreed. 2. Having regard to the nature of order this Court propose to pass in given facts and circumstances of the case, it may not be necessary to give detailed facts of the case, save and except, that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’) filed a suit for possession against the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant’) in the Court of Civil Judge(Junior Division), Indora, District Kangra, H.P. 3. Learned Court below, on the basis of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, framed following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his Act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is barred under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC ? OPD. 7. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD. 8. Relief.” 4. Subsequently, learned trial Court vide judgment dated 06.06.2005 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Appellant-defendant, being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by learned trial Court, preferred an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, which was dismissed, as a result of which judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court came to be upheld. 5. In the aforesaid background, appellant-defendant, by way of instant appeal, approached this Court praying therein for setting aside judgments and decrees passed by Courts below. 6. This Court vide order dated 11.10.2006 admitted the instant appeal on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the two Courts below have committed illegality in rejecting the plea of the appellant-defendant that the relief of possession claimed in the present case was barred, under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC?” 7. 6. This Court vide order dated 11.10.2006 admitted the instant appeal on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the two Courts below have committed illegality in rejecting the plea of the appellant-defendant that the relief of possession claimed in the present case was barred, under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC?” 7. Before this Court could advert to the merits of the case, Shri Pawan Gautam, learned counsel representing the appellant-defendant, while inviting the attention of this Court to the impugned judgment passed by learned first appellate Court, vehemently argued that learned first appellate Court has failed to take into consideration the issues involved in the present case while upholding the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid arguments, Mr.Gautam made this Court to travel through the judgment passed by learned trial Court to demonstrate that specific issue No.3 was framed by the learned trial Court with regard to maintainability of suit on account of provisions contained in Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’). 8. Mr.Gautam also invited the attention of this Court to the grounds of appeal, taken by the appellant-defendant before the learned first appellate Court, to suggest that specific ground was raised with regard to misappreciation and mis-reading of provisions of CPC, as enshrined under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. But, learned first appellate Court, while upholding the judgment of trial Court, has failed to take note of aforesaid specific ground raised by the appellant-defendant. 9. In this regard, Mr.Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, invited the attention of this Court to the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Harphool Singh (Dead) through his LRs, (2000)5 SCC 652 , to state that it was incumbent upon the learned first appellate Court, being last facts finding Court, to consider all the issues and then decide the same by assigning reasons. 10. Mr.Ajay Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff, while supporting the impugned judgment passed by learned first appellate Court, stated that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment and the same is based upon proper appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. 10. Mr.Ajay Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff, while supporting the impugned judgment passed by learned first appellate Court, stated that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment and the same is based upon proper appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. While refuting the aforesaid contention that no discussion having been made by learned first appellate Court on the issue of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, Mr.Sharma contended that there was no requirement to return specific finding qua the aforesaid issue by the first appellate Court, in view of specific findings returned by the trial Court below on the issue at hand. Mr.Sharma, further contended that earlier suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was for mandatory injunction, whereas, subsequent suit was for possession and, as such, learned trial Court rightly decided the aforesaid issue in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. While concluding his arguments, Mr.Sharma, contended that otherwise also perusal of impugned judgment suggests that no submission, if any, was made with regard to provisions contained under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and as such there was no occasion for learned first appellate Court to discuss and decide the same. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 12. This Court, solely with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of submissions having been made by Mr.Gautam, learned counsel representing the appellant-defendant, carefully perused the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant-defendant before the learned first appellate Court vis-à-vis judgment passed by learned first appellate Court, perusal whereof certainly suggests that learned first appellate Court, while upholding the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, failed to address itself to specific issue with regard to application of provisions of law as contained in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, framed by learned trial Court below. If the judgment passed by learned first appellate court is read in its entirety, there is no discussion, if any, of the findings returned by learned trial Court qua issue No.3, wherein learned Court below held that suit, having been filed by the plaintiff-respondent, is not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 and Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. 13. If the judgment passed by learned first appellate court is read in its entirety, there is no discussion, if any, of the findings returned by learned trial Court qua issue No.3, wherein learned Court below held that suit, having been filed by the plaintiff-respondent, is not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 and Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. 13. True, it is, that there is no mention, if any, of submissions having been made by learned counsel representing either of the parties qua the aforesaid issue, but once specific plea with regard to Order 2 Rule 2 CPC was made by the appellant-defendant in the ground of appeal before learned first appellate Court, learned first appellate Court ought to have considered and decided the same by assigning the reasons. 14. It is well settled that first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and parties have right to be heard both on question 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 upholding 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 Curt 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. 15. In the instant case, this Court after having carefully perused specific issue having been framed by the learned trial Court with regard to application of provisions contained in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC vis-à-vis impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court, has no hesitation to conclude that learned trial Court has failed to address this issue while dismissing the appeal of the appellant-defendant, as a result of which a great prejudice has been caused to the appellant-defendant. 16. 16. Hon’ble Apex Court in Laliteshwar Prasad Singh vs. S.P. Srivastava, (2017)2 SCC 415 , has specifically held that appellate Court is final Court of facts and as such its judgment must reflect application of mind and must record its findings supported by reasons. Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, taking note of the earlier judgment passed in Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001)3 SCC 179 , has 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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 reasonings of the trial court are erroneous.” 17. In the case at hand, this Court, after having gone through the record made available, has no hesitation to conclude that learned first appellate Court, while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, has failed to address specific issue raised by the appellant-defendant with regard to application of provisions contained in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and as such matter needs to be decided afresh by the learned first appellate Court. This Court finds substantial force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant that there is no attempt to appreciate the aforesaid ground of appeal raised by the appellant-defendant in his appeal and as such matter needs to be remanded back to the learned trial Court for deciding afresh. After having carefully examined the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court, it can be safely concluded that the learned first appellate Court has failed to discuss the material issue, as stated above, and has passed cryptic order. 18. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shasidhar and others vs. Ashwini Uma Mathad and another, (2015)11 SCC 269 , wherein the Hon’ble Court has 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. 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. 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. 13. 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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?” 19. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as salutary principles, as have been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that learned first appellate Court has failed to discharge its obligation and 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 first appellate Court with the direction to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. 20. However, it is made clear that while passing aforesaid judgment, this Court has not passed any order on the merits of the case and as such any observation made in the process of passing of this judgment may not be construed as opinion of the 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 observation made hereinabove. 21. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the learned first appellate Court on 2.6.2017. Since the parties are litigating in the Courts of law since 2002, learned first appellate Court is expected to decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of passing of this judgment. 21. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the learned first appellate Court on 2.6.2017. Since the parties are litigating in the Courts of law since 2002, learned first appellate Court is expected to decide the matter within a period of three 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 alongwith pending applications, if any.