ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. By the judgment of this Court dated 26 September 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 9333/2018 titled "Uttaradi Mutt vs. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt", the following directions were issued:- "19.......Instead, the appeal is restored to the file of the High Court to its original number. The High Court shall frame points on which the additional evidence is allowed to be produced and direct the First Appellate Court to take the additional evidence on record in accordance with law and then return the evidence to the High Court together with its findings thereon and the reasons thereof, within the prescribed time. Such directions be issued by the High Court expeditiously, preferably within two months from today. On receipt of the said report from the First Appellate Court, the High Court may then consider the Second Appeal on the substantial questions of law already framed or such other substantial questions of law that may arise for its consideration." 3. In the course of its judgment, this Court held that the application filed by the appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was correctly allowed by the High Court. However, this Court held that instead of remanding the suit to the Trial court, it would be appropriate for the High Court to frame the points on which additional evidence could be adduced by the defendant (the appellant in the present proceedings) and the first appellate court could be called upon to record additional evidence inter alia covering the genuineness and authenticity of the additional evidence including whether the contents have been duly proved. 4. In pursuance of the above directions, the High Court has framed the following points for determination by the first appellate court:- "(i) Whether the appellant-defendant i.e., Sri Raghavendra Swami Mutt proves the existence, authenticity/genuineness and contents of the documents that are permitted to be produced by allowing its three Applications in I.A. Nos. 5, 11 and 12? (ii) Whether the appellant-defendant i.e., Sri. Raghavendra Swami Mutt proves that any of the documents that are permitted to be produced by allowing the aforesaid three Applications, is/are spurious, concocted or fraudulently obtained? (iii) Whether any of the documents that are already part of the record are genuine or spurious or obtained by fraud? 5, 11 and 12? (ii) Whether the appellant-defendant i.e., Sri. Raghavendra Swami Mutt proves that any of the documents that are permitted to be produced by allowing the aforesaid three Applications, is/are spurious, concocted or fraudulently obtained? (iii) Whether any of the documents that are already part of the record are genuine or spurious or obtained by fraud? And, (iv) What is the effect of the findings to be recorded by the First Appellate Court concerning the aforesaid points (i), (ii) & (iii), on the issues framed in the main proceedings, by both the Courts below i.e., the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court?" 5. We have heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 6. In our view, point No. (i) as framed above is sufficient to meet the directions of this Court and hence, point Nos. (ii) and (iii) need not be framed. 7. Consequently, the points which have been framed by the High Court shall be confined to point No. (i) and point No. (iv). However, "(ii) & (iii)" in point No. (iv) shall be deleted. Point No. (iv) is renumbered as (ii), as a result. 8. Parties would be at liberty to urge all appropriate contentions before the High Court in the Second Appeal after the finding is returned by the first appellate court. 9. The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.