JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the present regular second appeal, appellants have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Mandi, District Mandi, in Civil Appeal No.101 of 2009, dated 1.12.2012, vide which, the learned First Appellate Court, has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, in Civil Suit No.64 of 2003, dated 22.8.2009. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal are that the original plaintiff, Shri Devi Ram (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the original plaintiff’) maintained a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendants’) alleging that late Shri Nokhu father of the original plaintiff was owner-in-possession of the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.10/23, Kittas 56, measuring 65-8-14 bighas, situated at village Ghayan, H.B. No.101, Illaqua Kohalu, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P and land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.38/65, Kita 13 measuring 2-15-3 bighas, situated at village Kado, H.B No.99, Tehsil Chachiot District Mandi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’) which was previously in possession of late Nokhu Ram, as non-occupancy tenant under the previous owner Amar Singh and others, the plaintiff alongwith his two brothers Chet Ram and Balak Ram came in possession of the suit land after the death of Nokhu Ram. Similarly, the other land of late Nokhu situated in muhal Drahal No.H.B.97 was also possessed by Nokhu, as a tenant and after his death the plaintiff and his two brothers came into possession of the same. Nokhu Ram, died in the year, 1950 and after his death the suit land was inherited by the plaintiff and his two brothers. The plaintiff and his two brothers namely, Chet Ram and Balak Ram, were minor and mother of the plaintiff soon after the death of her husband Nokhu settled in the house of one Kalu Ram. Since the plaintiff and his brothers were minors they were also taken by their mother Smt. Kala Devi to the house of Kalu Ram and brought up there. After the death of the father of the plaintiff in the year 1950, mutations No.95, 178 and 201 qua inheritance of Nokhu were attested in favour of the plaintiff, his brothers and one Saju. After the death of the father of the plaintiff in the year 1950, mutations No.95, 178 and 201 qua inheritance of Nokhu were attested in favour of the plaintiff, his brothers and one Saju. At the time of attestation of aforesaid mutations, the plaintiff and his brothers were minors and Kala introduced the plaintiff and his two brothers with defendant No.1 as their real brothers. Taking undue advantage of the wrong revenue entry in the name of Saju, the defendant in the year 1996, came to the plaintiff and represented that he was unable to watch and ward the landed property recorded in the name of Saju and intend to appoint the plaintiff, as his General Power of Attorney. The mutation in the name of Saju was wrong, illegal, void ab-initio having no effect upon the right of the plaintiff and his two brothers. 3. The case of the plaintiff was resisted and contested by defendant No.1 by filing written statement and taking preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable, plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit, suit is barred by limitation and suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. On merits, it is denied that after the death of Nokhu his landed property was inherited and possessed by the plaintiff alongwith Chet Ram and Balak Ram. As a matter of fact, after the death of Nokhu his entire landed property was inherited by his four sons. It is admitted that Nokhu died in the year 1950 and Kala was legally wedded wife of Nokhu. In fact, Kala Devi had given birth to four sons from the loins of Nokhu and the replying defendant was in the womb of his mother, when his father Nokhu has expired and defendant born after three months from the date of death of Nokhu. His name, as Saju, was got entered in the record of Patwari by his grand mother. 4. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the original plaintiff, Shri Devi Ram, maintained first appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, assailing the findings of learned Trial Court being against the law and without appreciating the evidence and pleading of the parties to its true perspective. During the pendency of the said appeal, the original plaintiff died and his legal representatives i.e. Shri Khem Singh and Smt. Fagni, pursued the instant appeal. During the pendency of the said appeal, the original plaintiff died and his legal representatives i.e. Shri Khem Singh and Smt. Fagni, pursued the instant appeal. However, during the pendency of the instant appeal, Smt. Fagni died, so her name was deleted from the array of appellants. The learned First Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the learned Trial Court. Now, appellant has maintained the present Regular Second Appeal, which was admitted for hearing on 6.5.2013, on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the Courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted the pleadings and evidence in holding that Bhim Singh alias Saju Ram is the son of Noku Ram? 2. Whether the Courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/G and Ex.PW4/D? 3. Whether the lower appellate Court has relied evidence which was not relevant under Section 50 of the Evidence Act? 4. Whether the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) has erred in not deciding the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC?” 5. When the instant case was taken up today for hearing, Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court is required to be set aside only on the ground that the learned First Appellate Court has f ailed to decide an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure before passing the judgment and decree and that application remained undecided in the learned First Appellate Court. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure remained undecided, but the findings are as per law. 7. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure remained undecided, but the findings are as per law. 7. In RSA No.277 of 1996 case titled M/s Himprastha Financiers (P) Ltd. and others vs. Union of India and others, decided on 28.5.2021, a coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under : “It is settled law that when a party approaches the Appellate Court with an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, then the application has to be decided one way or the other by the Appellate Court and the same cannot remain undecided on the Court record, because none can say as to what would have been the effect of the decision of the same on the final judgment, if the application was allowed by the Court. In this case, by not deciding this third application dated 24.4.1996 filed under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned First Appellate Court has committed a material irregularity, which renders the judgment and decree passed by it nonest in the eyes of law. It is again reiterated that this Court is not suggesting as to what order should have been passed on the said application by the learned First Appellate Court and all that this Court is laying stress upon is that once this application was on record, learned First Appellate Court was duty bound to decide it.” 8. Similarly, in RSA No.622 of 2007 case titled Ms. Mani Devi vs. Suresh Chand and others, decided on 27th August, 2021, a coordinate Bench of this Court has also held as under : “Undisputedly, plaintiff had right to invite a decision, on her prayer to adduce additional evidence, from Lower Appellate Court. The absence of adjudication on application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure amounts to refusal of exercise of jurisdiction vested in Lower Appellate Court, which has potential to cause prejudice to the plaintiff. “ 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, substantial question of law No.4, is answered holding that the learned First Appellate Court is required to decide an application, under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on one way or the other. 10. “ 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, substantial question of law No.4, is answered holding that the learned First Appellate Court is required to decide an application, under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on one way or the other. 10. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed on this point alone by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court and the case is remanded back to the learned First Appellate Court to dispose of an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as mentioned in page-36 of the record as well as the reply, as mentioned in page-38 of the learned First Appellate Court, in accordance with law. Thereafter, the learned First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 30th April, 2022. Parties to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 1 st December, 2021. 11. In view of the above, the instant appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Record of the learned Courts below be sent back immediately.