ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Prashant Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Nazam Zafar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The instant second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.1983 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Gonda in Civil Appeal No. 292 of 1980, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent dismissed by the trial court was set aside and the appeal was allowed decreeing the suit in part. The instant second appeal was admitted on the following two substantial questions of law: “(i) As to whether while exercising powers under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was open to the court below to set aside the findings of fact recorded by the said court in earlier judgment. Regarding these findings no grievance was made in the review petition and also no prayer was made for the review of the said findings in the review petition? (ii) As to whether the First Appellate Court could have reversed the finding of the trial court without considering the evidence, meeting the reasons of the trial court and was it sound a exercise of jurisdiction in terms of Section 96 read with Section 41 Rule 31 CPC?” 3. In order to answer the aforesaid questions, certain brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are being noticed first. 4. Smt. Hasmunnisa, the original plaintiff who is now represented by her legal heirs instituted a suit for declaration in the Court of Munsif, Gonda registered as Case No. 319 of 1979 against Smt. Firojannissa, the original defendant now represented by her legal heirs. 5. The pleading as framed by the plaintiff was that the property in question belonged to one Raj Mohammad. Upon his death Qamar Mohammad, Shah Mohammad and Deen Mohammad became the Sirdar. The defendant Smt. Firojannissa was the wife of Raj Mohammad and her name was also recorded. However, it was pleaded that after the death of Raj Mohammad the defendant Smt. Firojannissa re-married with one Mohammad Shafi on 01.01.1973 and started residing in Atraula and thus she lost her right in the property upon remarriage. 6. The said suit came to be contested by Smt. Firojannissa by filing her written statement wherein she categorically denied that after the death of Raj Mohammad, she ever married with Mohammad Shafi. 6. The said suit came to be contested by Smt. Firojannissa by filing her written statement wherein she categorically denied that after the death of Raj Mohammad, she ever married with Mohammad Shafi. She had also raised other plea that since the plaintiff was not in possession, the suit for injunction was not maintainable also that the suit was bad for non-joinder of parties. 7. Upon the exchange of pleadings, the trial court framed six issues. Issue no. 1 related to the fact as to whether the property was undervalued. Issue no. 2 was whether the defendant had re-married Mohammad Shafi and was residing together as husband and wife and if so, it effect. The third issue was whether the defendant being the mother of the son of Raj Mohammad was entitled to inherit the property and if so, its effect. Issue nos. 4 and 5 related to the fact whether the suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act was maintainable and the trial court had the jurisdiction to try the same. Issue no. 6 was formal in nature as to what relief the plaintiff was entitled. 8. The trial court after noticing both the oral as well as documentary evidence primarily dealing with the issue no. 2 which was the crux of the controversy held that the defendant had not remarried Mohammad Shafi. Consequently, the issue of inheritance was also decided against the plaintiff and by means of judgment and decree dated 11.11.1980, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 9. The plaintiff preferred regular a civil appeal under Section 96 CPC. The appeal also came to be dismissed by means of judgment and decree dated 02.03.1982. Against the said dismissal of the first appeal, the plaintiff preferred review petition which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 8 of 1982. It will also be relevant to notice that simultaneously the plaintiff also preferred a second appeal being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 02.03.1982 before this Court which was registered as Second Appeal No. 647 of 1982. The Second Appeal No. 647 of 1982 came to be dismissed on 09.08.2001. However, in the meantime, while the Second Appeal No. 647 of 1982 remained pending before this Court. The review petition preferred by the plaintiff before the lower appellate court came to be allowed by means of order dated 17.12.1982. The Second Appeal No. 647 of 1982 came to be dismissed on 09.08.2001. However, in the meantime, while the Second Appeal No. 647 of 1982 remained pending before this Court. The review petition preferred by the plaintiff before the lower appellate court came to be allowed by means of order dated 17.12.1982. Thereafter the Regular Civil Appeal No. 292 of 1980 was reheard on merits and by means of judgment and decree dated 04.04.1983 it allowed the appeal in part. As a result, the suit of the plaintiff which was dismissed was partly allowed. 10. Being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.1983 passed in Civil Appeal No. 292 of 1980, the instant second appeal bearing No. 342 of 1983 came to be filed which was initially admitted on one substantial question of law as notice above. However, vide order dated 30.11.2021, another question of law was formulated which has been noticed above and the parties have been heard on both the substantial questions of law. 11. In so far as the first question of law is concerned, as to whether while exercising powers under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it was open to the court below to set aside the finding of fact recorded by the said court in the earlier judgment. This issue may not engage the attention of the Court for the reason that while the review was allowed by the lower appellate court on 17.12.1982. The learned counsel for the parties appearing before the lower appellate court had conceded that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and noticing the same, the lower appellate court had allowed the review. This order of allowing the review was not assailed That being so, it is not open for the appellant to raise this question before this Court nor it involves a substantial question arising out the pleadings of the instant case. 12. This Court is fortified in its view in light of the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Ram Sahu and others Vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and others which has been followed by this Court in the case of Smt. Rajeshwari & others Vs. Smt. Meharunnishan & others, 2021 (7) ADJ 103 (LB). 13. 12. This Court is fortified in its view in light of the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Ram Sahu and others Vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and others which has been followed by this Court in the case of Smt. Rajeshwari & others Vs. Smt. Meharunnishan & others, 2021 (7) ADJ 103 (LB). 13. In light of the aforesaid and as already noticed above where the issue had already been conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant before the lower appellate court that the matter is involved and error apparent on the face of the record and the said order was not challenged hence in the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as in light of the law as noticed above the issue does not involve a substantial question of law to be adjudicated in the instant appeal. 14. Now, noticing the substantial question of law, as to whether the lower appellate could have reversed the finding of the trial court without considering and meeting the reasons of the trial court while exercising power under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. In this regard the law has now been well settled by the Apex Court. In the case of Sudarsan Puhan Vs. Jayanta Ku. Mohanty and Others wherein the powers of the First Appellate Court in context with Order 41 Rule 31 and Section 96 C.P.C. has been considered and Paras 21 to 29 of the said report reads as under: “........ 21. The powers of the first appellate court while deciding the first appeal are indeed well defined by various judicial pronouncements of this Court and are, therefore, no more res integra. 22. As far back in 1969, the learned Judge - V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. (as his Lordship then was the Judge of the Kerala High Court) while deciding the first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) in Kurian Chacko v. Varkey Ouseph, AIR 1969 Ker 316 , reminded the first appellate court of its duty to decide the first appeal. In his distinctive style of writing with subtle power of expression, the learned Judge held as under: (SCC Online Ker paras 1-3) “1. In his distinctive style of writing with 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) 23. This Court also in various cases reiterated the aforesaid principle and laid down the powers of the appellate court under Section 96 of the Code while deciding the first appeal. 24. We consider it apposite to refer to some of the decisions. 25. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 , this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 188-189, 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. 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.” 26. The above view was followed by a three-Judge Bench 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. 27. 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.” 28. 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 p. 303, Para 2) “2. A court of first appeal can re-appreciate the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion.” 29. Again in B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 808, this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words: (SCC pp. 530-531, 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. 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. (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. 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 and Madhukar v. Sangram, (2001) 4 SCC 756 ] 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.” 15. Similarly, in Malluru Mallappa (D) through LRs. Vs. 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.” 15. Similarly, in Malluru Mallappa (D) through LRs. Vs. Kuruvathappa and Others, 2020 (4) SCC 313 , the powers of the First Appellate Court have been considered and in Paras 10 to 19 of the said report, it is noticed as under: “.....10. Section 96 CPC provides for filing of an appeal from the decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorised to hear the appeals from the decisions of such courts. In the instant case, the appeal from the decree passed by the trial court lies to the High Court. The expression “appeal” has not been defined in CPC. Black's Law Dictionary (7th Edn.) defines an appeal as “a proceeding undertaken to have a decision reconsidered by bringing it to a higher authority”. It is a judicial examination of the decision by a higher court of the decision of a subordinate court to rectify any possible error in the order under appeal. The law provides the remedy of an appeal because of the recognition that those manning the judicial tiers too commit errors. 11. In Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, AIR 1963 SC 698 , it was held that a right of appeal carries with it a right of rehearing on law as well as on fact, unless the statute conferring a right of appeal limits the rehearing in some way as has been done in second appeal arising under CPC. 12. In Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat, (1969) 2 SCC 74 it was held thus: (SCC pp. 77-78, Para 5) “5.... In the well-known work of Story on Constitution (of United States), Vol. 2, Article 1761, it is stated that the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction is that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted and does not create that cause. The appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms and, indeed, in any form in which the legislature may choose to prescribe. 2, Article 1761, it is stated that the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction is that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted and does not create that cause. The appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms and, indeed, in any form in which the legislature may choose to prescribe. According to Article 1762, the most usual modes of exercising appellate jurisdiction, at least those which are most known in the United States, are by a writ of error, or by an appeal, or by some process of removal of a suit from an inferior tribunal. An appeal is a process of civil law origin and removes a cause, entirely subjecting the fact as well as the law, to a review and a retrial.” 13. It is a settled position of law that an appeal is a continuation of the proceedings of the original court. Ordinarily, the appellate jurisdiction involves a rehearing on law as well as on fact and is invoked by an aggrieved person. The first appeal is a valuable right of the appellant and therein all questions of fact and law decided by the trial court are open for reconsideration. Therefore, the first appellate court is required to address itself to all the issues and decide the case by giving reasons. The court of first appeal must record its findings only after dealing with all issues of law as well as fact and with the evidence, oral as well as documentary, led by the parties. The judgment of the first appellate court must display conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons on all issues and contentions [See: Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 , Madhukar v. Sangram, (2001) 4 SCC 756 , B.M. Narayana Gowda v. Shanthamma, (2011) 15 SCC 476 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 619, H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith, (2005) 10 SCC 243 and Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy Chettiar, (1980) 4 SCC 259]. 14. A first appeal under Section 96 CPC is entirely different from a second appeal under Section 100. Section 100 expressly bars second appeal unless a question of law is involved in a case and the question of law so involved is substantial in nature. 15. Order 41 Rule 31 CPC provides the guidelines for the appellate court to decide the matter. Section 100 expressly bars second appeal unless a question of law is involved in a case and the question of law so involved is substantial in nature. 15. Order 41 Rule 31 CPC provides the guidelines for the appellate court to decide the matter. For ready reference Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is as under: “31. Contents, date and signature of judgment - The judgment of the appellate court shall be in writing and shall state: (a) the points for determination. (b) the decision thereon. (c) the reasons for the decision. (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein.” 16. In Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar, (2015) 1 SCC 391 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 521 this Court has reiterated the principles to be borne in mind while disposing of a first appeal, as under : (SCC p. 395, Para 15) “15. Again in B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 808, this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words : (SCC pp. 530-31, paras 3-4) “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. (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 [H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy v. B.V. Nagesha] 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. [Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 and Madhukar v. Sangram, (2001) 4 SCC 756 ] 17. In Shasidhar v. Ashwini Uma Mathad, (2015) 11 SCC 269 , it was held as under: (SCC p. 277, Para 21) “21. Being the first appellate court, it was, therefore, the duty of the High Court [Shasidhar v. Ashwini Uma Mathad] to decide the first appeal keeping in view the scope and powers conferred on it under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code mentioned above. It was unfortunately not done, thereby, causing prejudice to the appellants whose valuable right to prosecute the first appeal on facts and law was adversely affected which, in turn, deprived them of a hearing in the appeal in accordance with law.” 18. It is clear from the above provisions and the decisions of this Court that the judgment of the first appellate court has to set out points for determination, record the decision thereon and give its own reasons. Even when the first appellate court affirms the judgment of the trial court, it is required to comply with the requirement of Order 41 Rule 31 and non-observance of this requirement leads to infirmity in the judgment of the first appellate court. No doubt, when the appellate court agrees with the views of the trial court on evidence, it need not restate effect of evidence or reiterate reasons given by the trial court. Expression of a general agreement with the reasons given by the trial court would ordinarily suffice. 19. No doubt, when the appellate court agrees with the views of the trial court on evidence, it need not restate effect of evidence or reiterate reasons given by the trial court. Expression of a general agreement with the reasons given by the trial court would ordinarily suffice. 19. Keeping in mind the above principles, let us examine the present case. As stated above, the issue relating to readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract and issue relating to limitation were held against the plaintiff and the suit was accordingly dismissed. The appeal before the High Court involved both disputed questions of law and fact. The High Court without examination of any of these aspects has dismissed the appeal by a cryptic order. The court below has neither reappreciated the evidence of the parties, nor it has passed a reasoned order. The High Court has failed to follow the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC while deciding the appeal. Mr. Bhat has argued that the suit was well within time under Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Even this question has not been examined in its proper perspective.” 16. Yet again in Karuppuraj Vs. M. Ganesan, the Apex Court in Para 22 to 26 of the said report has held as under: “............. 22. It also appears that the High Court has disposed of the appeal preferred under Order XLI CPC read with Section 96 in a most casual and perfunctory manner. Apart from the fact that the High Court has not framed the points for determination as required under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, it appears that even the High Court has not exercised the powers vested in it as a First Appellate Court. As observed above, the High Court has neither re-appreciated the entire evidence on record nor has given any specific findings on the issues which were even raised before the learned Trial Court. 23. In the case of B.V. Nagesh (supra), this Court has observed and held that without framing points for determination and considering both facts and law; without proper discussion and assigning the reasons, the First Appellate Court cannot dispose of the first appeal under Section 96 CPC and that too without raising the points for determination as provided under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC. In paragraphs 3 and 4, it is observed and held as under: “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. (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. 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 and Madhukar v. Sangram, (2001) 4 SCC 756 ] 24. In the case of Emmsons International Limited (supra) while considering the scope and ambit of exercise of powers under Section 96 of CPC by the Appellate Court and after considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of Madhukar v. Sangram, (2001) 4 SCC 756 ; H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (Dead) by LRs. (2005) 10 SCC 243 and Jagannath v. Arulappa, (2005) 12 SCC 303 , it is held that sitting as a Court of First Appeal, it is the duty of the Appellate Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. 25. (2005) 10 SCC 243 and Jagannath v. Arulappa, (2005) 12 SCC 303 , it is held that sitting as a Court of First Appeal, it is the duty of the Appellate Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. 25. In the case of H. Siddiqui (Dead) by LRs. (supra), it is observed and held in paragraph 21 as under: “21. The said provisions provide guidelines for the appellate court as to how the court has to proceed and decide the case. The provisions should be read in such a way as to require that the various particulars mentioned therein should be taken into consideration. Thus, it must be evident from the judgment of the appellate court that the court has properly appreciated the facts/evidence, applied its mind and decided the case considering the material on record. It would amount to substantial compliance with the said provisions if the appellate court's judgment is based on the independent assessment of the relevant evidence on all important aspects of the matter and the findings of the appellate court are well founded and quite convincing. It is mandatory for the appellate court to independently assess the evidence of the parties and consider the relevant points which arise for adjudication and the bearing of the evidence on those points. Being the final court of fact, the first appellate court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on each point independently to that of the trial court. Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and the court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions. (Vide Sukhpal Singh v. Kalyan Singh, AIR 1963 SC 146 , Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124 , G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, (2006) 3 SCC 224 , Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, (2007) 8 SCC 600 and Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary, (2007) 10 SCC 296 : AIR 2007 SC 2380 ].” 26. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, if the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is considered, in that case, there is a total non-compliance of the provisions of the Order XLI Rule 31 CPC. The High Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it as a First Appellate Court; the High Court has not at all re-appreciated the entire evidence on record; and not even considered the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court, in particular, on findings recorded by the learned Trial Court on the issue of willingness. Therefore, as such, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and in normal circumstances we would have accepted the request of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent to remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of appeal. However, even on other points also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. We refrain from remanding the matter to the High Court and we decide the appeal on merits. 17. It would be noticed in light of the law which has been crystalized by the Apex Court that it is incumbent upon the first appellate court even while delivering a judgment of affirmance it must comply with the provision of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and must consider all the issues and evidences available on record. The first appellate court being a court of fact and law if it passes a judgment of reversal, in such circumstances, it is necessary for the first appellate court to consider the issues, the reason and evidence considered by the trial court thereafter it should consider the material evidence to give reasons for its own findings after setting aside the findings of the trial court, if found erroneous. 18. Noticing the aforesaid proposition, if the judgment passed by the lower appellate court is seen, it would indicate that it has clearly fallen short of the mandate as required by law and emphasized by the Apex Court in the decisions as noticed hereinabove. The first appeal is valuable right in the hands of the party. Thus, it is not desirable that the lower appellate court being the court of law and fact may in a cursory manner decide the first appeal. The first appeal is valuable right in the hands of the party. Thus, it is not desirable that the lower appellate court being the court of law and fact may in a cursory manner decide the first appeal. In the instant case, the issue of remarriage of the defendant Smt. Firojan Nissa with Mohammad Shafi was the crux of the controversy. The trial court while dealing with issue no. 2 has taken pains to notice the relevant evidence as led by the respective parties both oral and documentary evidence. After analyzing the same, it came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was unable to establish the remarriage of the defendant with Mohammad Shafi. 19. In this backdrop, if the decision of the lower appellate court is viewed, it will reveal that it has merely drawn its conclusion but it has not considered the evidence of the witnesses or the documentary evidence nor it has discussed the reasons given by the trial court to arrive at its finding nor the mistake which according to the first appellate court was committed by the trial court. It has merely noticed that the findings recorded by the trial court are not borne out from the record and finding is to be erroneous has reversed the said findings. 20. Clearly the manner in which the first appellate court has exercised its jurisdiction is not in accordance with mandate as provided under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC as elucidated in the various decision noticed hereinabove. 21. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the decision rendered by the lower appellate court dated 04.04.1983 passed in Civil Appeal No. 292 of 1980 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 22. In view of the aforesaid, the second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decreed dated 04.04.1983 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Gonda is set aside. The Appeal No. 292 of 1980 shall stands restored before the first appellate court. The parties to the instant appeal shall appear before the lower appellate court on 4th of January, 2022. The lower appellate court after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal most expeditiously not later then four months from the date, the parties appear before the lower appellate court considering that the appeal is of the year 1980. 23. The lower appellate court after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal most expeditiously not later then four months from the date, the parties appear before the lower appellate court considering that the appeal is of the year 1980. 23. The record of the lower court shall be transmitted most expeditiously. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.