ORDER : 1. The present appellants, who were the original defendants in Special Civil Suit No.193 of 1997 and appellants in Regular Civil Appeal No.138 of 2006, have challenged the judgment and decree dated 22nd February, 2006 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Court in Special Civil Suit No.193 of 1997 and judgment and decree dated 30th October, 2018 and 3rd November, 2018 passed by the first Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.138 of 2006. 2. Heard Mr. Kashyap R. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. K.J. Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for the respondent caveator. 3. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the judgment and order passed by the trial court is contrary to the facts and evidence on record. It was further submitted that, however, this Court has directed the first Appellate Court in Special Civil Application No.14490 of 2017 to decide the application below Exhibit 29 for production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this application was never decided by the first Appellate Court while passing the judgment. That, material documents were sought to be produced by the appellants which were denied by the trial Court while dismissing the application Exhibit 29, thus Special Civil Application No.14480 of 2017 was preferred by the appellants which was accordingly allowed and the order dated 1st July, 2017 passed below application Exhibit 29 in Regular Civil Appeal No.138 of 2006 was set aside. That, without deciding the application Exhibit 29 as per the order by this Court, the trial Court has committed a grave error causing injustice to the appellants. 4. From the otherside, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that whatever the documents were sought to be produced by the appellants were already produced in the suit, and therefore, there was no question of permitting the present appellants to produce any additional evidence. That, order passed by the first Appellate Court cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. However, it was submitted that under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the issue of deciding the application can be referred to the first Appellate Court retaining the present appeal pending before this Court with a direction to the first Appellate Court to decide the issue of permitting additional evidence, as sought for by the present appellants in application Exhibit 29. That, after recording the findings and inviting the same from first Appellate Court on such limited issue, this Court may decide the appeal on merits. Hence, learned counsel for the respondent requested to pass necessary orders. 5. It is undisputed fact that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was preferred by the present appellants before the first Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.138 of 2006. The prayer made by the present appellants was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bharuch below the application Exhibit 29. The present appellants approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.14490 of 2017, and this Court, by an order dated 31st July, 2018, was pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 1st July, 2017 passed below application Exhibit 29 in Regular Civil Appeal No.138 of 2006 and application Exhibit 29 was ordered to be considered in accordance with the law by learned Additional District Judge, Bharuch, at the time of final stage of hearing of the appeal in question. Thereafter, it appears that Regular Civil Appeal No.138 of 2006 was decided and judgment and decree were passed dated 30th October, 2018 and 3rd November, 2018 without deciding the application Exhibit 29 requested by the appellants to permit them to produce additional evidence as directed by this Court in the aforesaid Special Civil Application, and therefore, following question would arise : - “Whether the ld. Lower/first appellate court has committed grave error in dismissing the appeal without framing proper points for determination and also without deciding the Application below Exhibit-29 of the additional evidence under Order-41, Rule-27 of the CPC in spite of direction of this Hon'ble Court in SCA/14490/2017?” The appellants have suggested to frame this issue as question of law. 6. It is admitted position that, however, the first Appellate Court was bound to comply with the order dated 31st July, 2018 passed by this Court in the above said Special Civil Application, an application Exhibit 29 for production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 was not decided. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the first Appellate Court would require to decide the application below Exhibit 29 preferred by the present appellants for production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 7. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the first Appellate Court would require to decide the application below Exhibit 29 preferred by the present appellants for production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Corporation of Madras and Another V/s. M. Parthasarathy and Others, reported in (2018) 9 SCC 445 , in paras 14 and 15 has observed as under : - “14. Second error was of a procedure which the first appellate court failed to resort in disposing of the appeals. This also involved a question of jurisdiction. 15. Having allowed the CMP NO.1559 of 1993 and, in our opinion rightly, the first appellate court had two opinions, first it could have either set aside the entire judgment/decree of the trial court by taking recourse to the provisions of Order 41 Rule23-A of the Code and remanded the case to the trial court for retrial in the suits so as to enable the parties to adduce oral evidence to prove the additional evidence in accordance with law or second, it had on option to invoke powers under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code by retaining the appeals to itself and remitting the case to the trial court for limited trial on particular issues arising in the case in the light of additional evidence which was taken on record and invite findings of the trial court on such limited issues to enable the first appellate court to decide the appeals on merits.” 8. Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 also provides to refer the same question for trial to the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred. Further direction can also be issued to such court for forwarding the findings of the order passed below application Exhibit 29 within a particular period, and therefore, the learned first Appellate Court shall decide the application Exhibit 29 preferred by the present appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 within a period of one month from the receipt of this order and shall forward the findings thereof and reasons therefor to this Court within a period of six weeks. 9. Interim relief granted by the first Appellate Court shall be continued till further order. 10. 9. Interim relief granted by the first Appellate Court shall be continued till further order. 10. This appeal shall be placed for admission hearing by the Registry after arriving the findings from the first Appellate Court within a period of one week. Direct service is permitted.