JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal lays challenge to the judgment and decree of dismissal of R.A.No.92/2006 dated 06.12.2008 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Chincholi, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.146/1996 dated 24.03.2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) at Chincholi in which suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the Trial Court respectively and they will be referred as per their respective ranks before the Trial Court for convenience. 3. The brief contention of the parties: The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff’s contention is that, the suit property bearing survey No.229 measuring 02 acres & 30 guntas situated at Sulepeth village Tq: Chincholi Dist: Gulbarga had fallen to her husband’s share in the partition. After the death of her husband her name is mutated in respect of said lands. It is her further case that, she got converted 1 acre 17 guntas into Non-Agricultural land as per the order of Assistant Commissioner dated: 26-07-1994. She has contended that, the defendants without any right interest or title over the suit property are trying to interfere into her possession over the suit property. Hence this suit. 4. The defendants Nos.1, 3 and 4 appeared before the court and defendant No.2 remained absent. Only defendant No.4 filed written statement. 5. The defendant No.4 in his defense statement contended that the plaintiff is under misconception that the area belongs to her. Actually it does not belong to her and the boundaries shown in the plaint sketch are not correct. They are not depicting the actual situation. The defendant No.4 has denied the entire contention of the plaintiff as false and also denied the partition. It is the defendant No.1 who converted the suit land into Non Agricultural land and formed plots and the sold the same to defendant Nos.2 & 3 and others. From the defendant No.3 he has purchased an area of 100 X 50 feet through a registered sale deed. With these contentions he prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. On the basis of above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the issues. Both parties led oral and documentary evidence. After hearing both sides the Trial Court dismissed the suit. 7. From the defendant No.3 he has purchased an area of 100 X 50 feet through a registered sale deed. With these contentions he prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. On the basis of above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the issues. Both parties led oral and documentary evidence. After hearing both sides the Trial Court dismissed the suit. 7. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the plaintiff/appellant preferred R.A. No.92/2006 and the same also came to be dismissed by Judgment dated: 06-12-2008 by learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Chincholi. 8. This Regular Second Appeal challenging the impugned Judgment and decree is filed on the following grounds : (a) That oral and documentary evidence brought on record are misread which has resulted in erroneous finding by the courts. The admission made in the cross-examination are not properly appreciated which has resulted in both courts holding that the identity of the property is not proved. The defendant No.2 has sold are in favour of defendant No.3 which does not belongs to him and defendant No.4 without verifying has purchased the same. Both the courts has completely misread the evidence of PW.1. (b) It is contended that, the appellant has filed I.A. under Order 41 Rule 28 of CPC praying thereon to receive the sketch map produced by the defendant No.1 in another suit in OS.No.155/1998 admitting there suit open space belongs to plaintiff. But the first appellate court without disposing of I.A., dismissed the appeal. Hence the Judgment and decree needs to be set aside. 9. I have heard Sri. A.Vijaykumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Gururaj Ral Kakkeri, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Other respondents unrepresented. 10. Sri.A.Vijaykumar learned counsel for plaintiff/appellant during the course of arguments, contended that the plaintiff has produced important sketch map and filed application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C for leading additional evidence which is treated as I.A.No.II by the first appellate court. Though the appeal is posted for hearing on I.A.No.II and also on main appeal, but no order was passed either allowing or rejecting the I.A.No.II. The learned counsel further contended that, this has resulted in mis-carriage of justice and the case needs to be remanded back to the first appellate court to hear and decide about the said I.A.No.II along with main appeal. The learned counsel further contended that, this has resulted in mis-carriage of justice and the case needs to be remanded back to the first appellate court to hear and decide about the said I.A.No.II along with main appeal. In support of his arguments the learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions: (1) AIR 2009 Supreme Court 354 (Jatinder Singh and Anr. (Minor Through Mother) Vs Mehar Singh and Ors.. Balbir Singh and Anr. Vs Jatinder Singh and Anr. (2) AIR 2019 SC (Civil) 1994 (G.Shashikala (Died) Through L.rs V. G. Kalawati Bai (Died) Through L.R. (3) 20167 (3) AKR 575:: (2016) 3 CLR 880 (KAR) (Hajee Issac Saheb V. Indraje Latex Cetrifugal Rubber Factory and another) 11. Sri.Gururaj Rao Kakkeri learned counsel for respondent No.4 did not dispute the proposition laid down in the above said decisions to the effect of not passing any orders on an application filed for additional evidence before the first appellate court while disposing of the appeal on merits. 12. The case is heard at the admission stage by consent of both parties only on the point: “Whether the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court deserves to be set-aside and appeal is to be remanded back to the First Appellate Court on the sole ground for not passing any orders i.e., either allowing or rejecting the application I.A.No.II filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure for leading additional evidence”? 13. I have perused the pleadings, evidence and judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 14. It is evident from the order sheet of the First Appellate Court dated: 18-10-2008 wherein it indicates that the application I.A.No.II under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC came to be filed by the appellant along with affidavit seeking permission to produce sketch map which was filed in O.S.No.155/1998 before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Chincholi and marked as Ex.P.7. It is contended by him in the affidavit accompanying the said application that the said evidence is essential and material in coming to just decision of the case. The said additional evidence was not available to the appellant at the time of trial of the suit. The respondent No.4 has filed objection to this application. It is contended by him in the affidavit accompanying the said application that the said evidence is essential and material in coming to just decision of the case. The said additional evidence was not available to the appellant at the time of trial of the suit. The respondent No.4 has filed objection to this application. The order sheet further indicates that, the first appellate court posted the matter after receiving the objection on 14-11-2008 to 18-11-2008 and the order sheet also indicates that the matter was heard on 18-11-2008 both on appeal and also I.A.No.II and the case posted for Judgment. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal, but no order in respect of I.A.No.II came to be passed either allowing or rejecting it. Even on perusing the Judgment of the first appellate court no point for consideration on said application I.A.No.II is framed. Even in the final order of the operative portion in Judgment or in the order sheet nothing is mentioned as to whether the I.A.No.II is allowed or rejected. The first appellate court has not assigned any reasons for not considering the said application. 15. The effect of passing judgment without deciding the application for additional evidence by the first appellate court is no longer res integra. 16. The Apex Court in the case of Jatinder Singh and Anr. (Minor Through Mother) v. Mehar Singh and Ors. With Balbir Singh Singh & Anr. V. Jatinder Singh & Anr, reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 354. At para No.4 it is held as under: 4. While deciding the second appeal, however, the High Court had failed to take notice of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and decide whether additional evidence could be permitted to be admitted into evidence. In our view, when an application for acceptance of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the appellants, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with the same on merits. That being the admitted position, we have no other alternative but to set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the appeal back to it for a decision afresh in the second appeal along with the application for acceptance of additional evidence in accordance with law. That being the admitted position, we have no other alternative but to set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the appeal back to it for a decision afresh in the second appeal along with the application for acceptance of additional evidence in accordance with law. The Hon’ble Apex Court though was requested to consider the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC by itself, but the court has declined for the same and made the following observations at Para No.6:- 6. “We make clear that we have not gone into the merit as to whether the application for acceptance of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be allowed or not, which shall be decided by the High Court at the time of decision of the second appeal in accordance with law. We also make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the second appeal which shall also be decided by the High Court along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, we request the High Court to dispose of the second appeal at an early date preferably within six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it.” 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of G.Shashikala (Died) Through Lrs. V. G. Kalawati Bai (Died) Through L.R reported in AIR 2019 SC (Civil) 1994: AIR 2019 Supreme Court 2631 wherein at para Nos.14 to 18 it is held as under: 14. The question as to how the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code in the appeal should be decided by the Appellate Court remains no more res integra and stands decided by the three decisions of this Court in North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (Dead) by L.Rs., (2008) 8 SCC 511 (See paras 1317), ( AIR 2008 SC 2139 , Paras 12-16), Shalimar Chemical Works Limited v. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) and Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 423 (See para 16): (2010 AIR SCW 5200, Para 12) and Corporation of Madras and Anr. v. M. Parthasarathy and Ors., 2018 (9) SCC 445 (See paras 1115): ( AIR 2018 SC 3777 , Paras 13-17). 15. v. M. Parthasarathy and Ors., 2018 (9) SCC 445 (See paras 1115): ( AIR 2018 SC 3777 , Paras 13-17). 15. Unfortunately, the High Court while deciding the application (428/2011) filed by the respondents under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code did not notice the law laid down in the aforementioned three decisions and proceeded to decide the application/appeals and thus committed a jurisdictional error. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are unable to concur with the approach, reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the impugned order calling for interference by this Court. 17. The appeals, therefore, deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The interim order dated 11.07.2016 by which the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code was allowed and the final order impugned herein are set aside. 18. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the two first appeals, out of which these appeals arise, afresh including the two applications filed by the parties to the appeals under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code on their respective merits keeping in view the law laid down in the above mentioned three decisions insofar as it deals with disposal of the application of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code and decide the appeals on merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned order and in this order. 18. The learned single Judge of this court in case of Hajee Issac Saheb V Indraje Latex Cetrifugal Rubber Factory and another reported in 2016 (3) AKR 575:: (2016) 3 CLR 880 (KAR) has held at para Nos.16 & 17 as under: 16. In the present case, admittedly without considering the application I.A.4 filed under Order 41, Rule 27 r/wr section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Appellate Court proceeded to pass the judgment on the merits of the case. It is the duty of the Lower Appellate Court to consider the application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it should be considered at the first instance, at the time of disposal of the appeal on the merits of the case. It is the duty of the Lower Appellate Court to consider the application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it should be considered at the first instance, at the time of disposal of the appeal on the merits of the case. In the present case, the Lower Appellate Court has not at all considered the said application before deciding the appeal on merits or at the time of disposing of the appeal on merits and the same is contrary to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jatinder Singh & Anr. v. Mehar Singh & Ors. with Balbir Sing & Anr. v. Jatinder Singh and Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 354 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at paragraphs 4 and 5 as under:- "4. While deciding the second appeal, however, the High Court had failed to take notice of the application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and decide whether additional evidence could be permitted to he admitted into evidence. In our view when an application for acceptance of additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the appellants, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with the same on merits. That being the admitted position, we have no other alternative but to set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the appeal back to it for a decision afresh in the second appeal along with the application for acceptance of additional evidence in accordance with law. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned Judgment is set aside. The appeal is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. " 17. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the substantial question of law has to be answered in the 'negative' holding that the Appellate Court is not justified in allowing the appeal on merits without considering the application I.A 4 filed by the appellant under Order 41, Rule 27 r/w section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the same the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court is vitiated and cannot be sustained. 19. In view of the same the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court is vitiated and cannot be sustained. 19. Further, learned single Judge of this Court in the judgments passed in (1) RSA.No.49/2010 dated 28.09.2012 in the case of Y. Srinivas vs. S. Jayaram, in (2) RSA.No.1224/2013 dated 27.03.2017 in the case of Shakunagouda vs Dyavamma and another and in (3) RSA.No.200086/2015 dated 22.10.2019 in the case of Gurunath and another vs. Ashok Kumbar and others has taken the similar view. 20. It is to be kept in mind that the First Appeal is a valuable remedy and the parties have a right to be heard both on question fact and law in the said first appeal. A duty is cast upon the First Appellate Court to deal with all the issues and evidence led by the parties and decide it by giving reason in support of its findings. 21. In view of the above it is needless to state that whenever an application for leading additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is filed, the First Appellate Court may allow the application or it may dismiss the application. If the application is allowed then the Court has to follow further procedure as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 28 and 29 of CPC. If the application deserves to be dismissed then the Court may pronounce the judgment, but the Appellate Court has to decide the application for additional evidence at the time of disposing the appeal on merits. For these reasons, by consent of both sides the appeal deserves to be allowed and remanded back to the First Appellate Court to hear afresh and decide the appeal, along with the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC in accordance with the observation made above. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that, considering the period of pendency of litigation a time limit be prescribed for disposing of the first appeal to which the learned counsel for appellant also consented. Both sides counsels have undertaken to inform the date of appearance to the parties as well as to their respective counsel appearing before the first appellate court to assist the court in early disposal of the appeal. In the result the following; ORDER The appeal is allowed. Both sides counsels have undertaken to inform the date of appearance to the parties as well as to their respective counsel appearing before the first appellate court to assist the court in early disposal of the appeal. In the result the following; ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court on the file of Senior Civil Judge Chincholi in R.A.No.92/2006 dated 06.12.2008 is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded to the First Appellate Court with a direction to dispose of the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC while deciding the appeal on merits by hearing both the parties afresh. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Considering the long period of pendency of this litigation both the parties and their respective counsels to assist the First Appellate Court in early disposal of the appeal as far as possible within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. The parties shall appear before the Court on 10.11.2020. The Registry is directed to send the records secured in this case to the First Appellate Court forthwith.