JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Even though, these appeals have been formally admitted and even substantial questions of law stand formulated, however, I find that the learned first appellate Court has not decided the case as is required under law. 2. It is settled principle of law that right to file first appeal against the decree under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a valuable legal right of the litigant. The jurisdiction of the First Appellate Court while hearing the first appeal is very wide like that of the trial Court and it is open to the appellant to attack all findings of fact or/and of law in the first appeal. It is duty of the First Appellate Court to appreciate the entire evidence and may come to a different conclusion from that of the trial Court. While doing so, the judgment of the Appellate Court must reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all 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. 3. The scope, ambit and power of the first Appellate Court while deciding the first appeal have been subject matter of various judicial pronouncements and I may refer to the pronouncement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Laliteshwar Prasad Singh and Ors. versus S.P. Srivastava (dead) through legal representatives, (2017) 2 SCC 415 , wherein it was 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:- (SCC pp. 394-96, paras 12-15) "12. 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:- (SCC pp. 394-96, paras 12-15) "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 threeJudge 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. 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) ''2. A court of first appeal can reappreciate the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion.'' 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. 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.'' " RSA Nos. 653 and 676 of 2008. 4. Adverting to the facts, it would be noticed that the plaintiffHPSEDC filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,21,841.60/- against defendant-Rakesh Thapar which was decreed by the learned trial Court along with future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decretal amount. However, on appeal having been preferred by Shri Rakesh Thapar, the principal amount was reduced from Rs.3,21,841.60/- to Rs.1,72,679/- and even the rate of interest was also reduced from 9% to 6% per annum. 5. The judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court has been assailed by the defendant-Rakesh Thapar by filing RSA No. 653 of 2008 and by the plaintiff-HPSEDC by filing RSA No. 676 of 2008. 5. The judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court has been assailed by the defendant-Rakesh Thapar by filing RSA No. 653 of 2008 and by the plaintiff-HPSEDC by filing RSA No. 676 of 2008. It would be noticed that the only reasoning assigned by the learned first appellate Court for reducing the amount in question is that the suit qua other amount for which decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff was time barred. However, while doing so, the learned first appellate Court has not at all adverted to the limitation and cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff in paras-11 and 14 of the plaint which fact has not been denied by the defendant in his written statement and the same reads as under: "11. That despite the various reminders to the defendant, he failed to deposit the amount and instead approached the ld. Sub Judge, Palampur and Hon''ble High Court for referring the dispute to learned arbitrator as per Agreement. However, the Hon''ble High Court vide its order dated 26-11-1999 rejected the plea of defendant observing that the dispute is not amenable to arbitration. 14. That the cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff on 16-6-1992, the date of tender and the award 24-6-1992, on 28-7-1992 when the agreement was executed and further on 30-6-1997 when the extended time lapsed. On 26-9-1997 and 21-11-1997 when unfinished work was alloted to another contractor. The cause of action has further arisen on 3-5-1999 when the certificate of completion was issued by competent authority, 3-2-2000 and 30-4-2001 when the defendant was called upon to pay the amount. The suit is, therefore, within the period of limitation." RSA Nos. 208 and 221 of 2013. 6. Adverting to the facts, it would be noticed that the plaintiffHPSEDC filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,42,499/- against defendant- Rakesh Thapar which was partly decreed by the learned trial Court along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 07.06.1997 till realization of the entire decretal amount. However, on appeal having been preferred by Shri Rakesh Thapar, the amount was reduced from Rs.92,732.75/- to Rs.65,116/- and even the rate of interest was also reduced from 9% to 6% per annum. 7. However, on appeal having been preferred by Shri Rakesh Thapar, the amount was reduced from Rs.92,732.75/- to Rs.65,116/- and even the rate of interest was also reduced from 9% to 6% per annum. 7. The judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court has been assailed by the defendant-Rakesh Thapar by filing RSA No.221 of 2013 and by the plaintiff-HPSEDC by filing RSA No. 208 of 2013. It would be noticed that the only reasoning assigned by the learned first appellate Court for reducing the amount in question is that the suit qua other amount for which decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff was time barred. However, while doing so, the learned first appellate Court has not at all adverted to the limitation and cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff in paras-11 and 14 of the plaint, which fact has not been denied by the defendant in his written statement and the same reads as under: "11. That despite the various reminders to the defendant, he failed to deposit the amount and instead approached the learned Sub Judge, Palampur and Hon''ble High Court for referring the dispute to learned arbitrator as per Agreement. However, the Hon''ble High Court vide its order dated 26-11-1999 rejected the plea of defendant observing that the dispute is not amenable to arbitration. 14. That the cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff on 16-6-1992, the date of tender and the award 24-6-1992, on 28-7-1992 when the agreement was executed and further on 30-6-1997 when the extended time lapsed and contract was rescinded. On 26-9-97 and 21-11-1997 when unfinished work was alloted to another contractor. The cause of action has further arisen on 3-5-1999 when the certificate of completion was issued by competent authority, 3-2-2000 and 30-4-2001 when the defendant was called upon to pay the amount. The suit is, therefore, within the period of limitation." 8. However, at this stage, it needs to be clarified that this Court is not rendering any findings on merits of the claim regarding suit being within limitation, but the least that was required of the Appellate Authority was to have at least considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter before setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court partly that too on the question of limitation. 9. 9. The learned First Appellate Court has not at all adverted to the reasoning accorded by the learned trial Court while reversing the judgment and decree passed by it and in fact has chosen to write a separate judgment. Whereas, as observed above, the First Appellate Court was required to come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial Court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. 10. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, the judgments and decrees, passed by the learned First Appellate Court cannot be countenanced and sustained and, therefore, this Court has no option, but to set aside the judgments and decrees so passed by it and remand the matters for decision afresh in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 11. All the appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of. 12. The parties, through their learned counsel(s), are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 16.12.2019. 13. Since the suits pertain to the year 2001, therefore, the learned First Appellate Court is requested to decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 31st March, 2020.