JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. B. D. Deka, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P. Upadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Court vide the order dated 26.09.2022 had admitted the instant appeal by formulating the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in passing the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2022 in Title Appeal No.06/2015 without setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit against the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 vide the order dated 03.01.2006 ? 3. For appreciation as to whether the said substantial question of law arises or involved in the instant appeal it is relevant to take note of the brief facts of the case. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as they stood before the trial court. 4. The respondents herein as the plaintiffs had instituted a suit being Title Suit No.367/2004 against the various persons seeking declaration of right, title and interest and conformation of possession over the Schedule-A land; for declaration that the general power of attorney dated 14.05.1983, registered in favour of the defendant No.4 was null and void; for declaration that the sale deed No.4609 dated 24.11.1954, executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2, was null and void as well as for declaration that the various other sale deeds made by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant Nos.3 to 13 were null and void. 5. Taking into account the short point involved, this Court is not going into the detail facts but it is relevant to take note of that vide the order dated 28.02.2005, on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not take steps against the defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4, the said suit was dismissed against the said defendants. Thereafter, the said suit was again revived as against the defendants vide the order dated 02.04.2005. Subsequent thereto, again vide the order dated 03.01.2006, on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not take steps against the defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4, the said suit was dismissed against the said defendants. Thereafter, the suit proceeded and there was no challenge to the order dated 03.01.2006 during the pendency of the suit. The trial court vide the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2012 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Thereafter, the suit proceeded and there was no challenge to the order dated 03.01.2006 during the pendency of the suit. The trial court vide the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2012 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Court of the District Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No.06/2015. 7. It is relevant to take note of that in the various grounds of objection, one of the grounds taken, i.e. ground No.VIII is as under:- “VIII. That the learned court below already dismissed the case against the defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4 on 03.01.2006 alleging that no fresh step was taken by the plaintiff to issue the summonses against them. The review petition against the dismissal order was also rejected by the learned court below with the observation that the plaintiff failed to furnish the correct and proper address of the defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4. But, the proper address of the defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4 could not be collected and in the evidence it is also proved that the identity of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 are also not known to the other defendants. In the same time, the identity of the defendant No.4 also could not be established. Thus, the dismissal order passed by the learned court below is totally wrong and perverse and subsequent order of rejection of the review petition is also bad in law and liable to be set aside.” 8. The said ground No.VIII is a ground taken under Section 105 of the CPC challenging the order dated 03.01.2006 in so far as in dismissing the suit against the defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4. The First Appellate Court decided the said appeal issue-wise and decreed the appeal on contest in favour of the plaintiffs thereby holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of right, title and interest of the land mentioned in Schedule-A and also entitled for conformation of possession of the said land. It was further observed that the sale deed dated 24.11.1954, executed by the defendant No.1, in favour of the father-in-law of the defendant No.2, is declared as void and the other sale deeds executed by the defendant No.2, described in the Schedule B-3, was cancelled. 9. Being aggrieved, the defendant Nos. It was further observed that the sale deed dated 24.11.1954, executed by the defendant No.1, in favour of the father-in-law of the defendant No.2, is declared as void and the other sale deeds executed by the defendant No.2, described in the Schedule B-3, was cancelled. 9. Being aggrieved, the defendant Nos. 3 to 13 have approached this Court under Section 100 of the CPC. This Court on 26.09.2011 had framed the above mentioned substantial question of law. 10. Mr. B. D. Deka, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the defendant Nos. 3 to 13 have got right, title and interest on the basis of the deed of sale executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2. The learned counsel for the appellants referred to the relief sought for in the plaint and submitted that without taking into account that the suit was dismissed in so far as the defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4 vide the order dated 03.01.2006, the First Appellate Court could not have passed the declaration of the plaintiffs’ right, title and interest over the land described in Schedule-A of the plaint as well as the declaration that the sale deed No.4609 dated 24.11.1954 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 could not have been decreed. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the order dated 03.01.2006 whereby the suit was dismissed in so far as the defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4, the said declaration so sought for as regards the sale deed dated 24.11.1954 could not have been passed. 11. On the other hand, Mr. P. Upadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the appellants have duly raised the ground of objection challenging the order dated 03.01.2006 and also a review petition was filed against the dismissal order, but the trial court did not consider the same and the First Appellate Court also did not pass any effective order on the said ground of objection. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the proper addresses of the defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4 could not be collected and in the evidence it was also proved that the identities of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 are also not known to the other defendants. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the proper addresses of the defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4 could not be collected and in the evidence it was also proved that the identities of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 are also not known to the other defendants. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the identity of the defendant No.4 also could not be established. This aspect of the matter ought to have been taken into consideration by the First Appellate Court. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings and the judgment passed in both the courts below. A perusal of the plaint shows that it was alleged that the defendant No.1 falsely claiming him as the son of Late Nabasundari Das had executed the Deed of Sale dated 24.11.1954 in favour of the defendant No.2. It was also stated that the defendant No.1 had no relation whatsoever with Late Nabasundari Das and the plaintiff was only the legal heir of Late Nabasundari Das. The defendant No.2, thereupon, executed the various deeds of sale in favour of the defendant Nos. 3 to 13 including a sale deed in favour of the defendant No.4. All the sale deeds have been put to challenge in the suit. 13. From the written statement filed by the defendant No. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, & 13 it reveals that they have acquired right, title and interest over the land on the basis of the deed of sale executed by the defendant No.2 who claimed his right from the defendant No.1. The decision of the trial court initially on 28.02.2005 to dismiss the suit against the defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4 and subsequently restoring it vide the order dated 02.04.2005 and again vide the order dated 03.01.2006 dismissing the suit as regards the defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4 has a cascading effect on the rights of the plaintiffs in as much as the dismissal of the suit as regards the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 would make the deed of sale dated 24.11.1954 final in so far as the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 are concerned and the challenge to the deeds of sale described in Schedule-B3 cannot be decided in favour of the plaintiffs’ rights if the Deed of Sale dated 24.11.1994 holds the field. 1 & 2 would make the deed of sale dated 24.11.1954 final in so far as the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 are concerned and the challenge to the deeds of sale described in Schedule-B3 cannot be decided in favour of the plaintiffs’ rights if the Deed of Sale dated 24.11.1994 holds the field. It is under such circumstances the plaintiffs initially filed the review application which was however dismissed by the trial court. Thereupon, the plaintiffs challenged the order dated 03.01.2006 before the First Appellate Court as ground No.VIII as quoted herein above. However the First Appellate Court, without considering the same, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs in spite of there being a dismissal order of the suit as against the defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 4. The First Appellate Court could have declared the deed of sale dated 24.11.1954, executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the father-in-law of the defendant No.2 as null and void when the suit as regards the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 was dismissed. 14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for remand. Consequently, this Court, therefore, sets aside the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2022 passed in Title Appeal No.6/20015 by the District Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati and thereby directs the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh by taking into account the ground of Objection No.VIII along with other grounds as mentioned in the Memo of Appeal. 15. Taking into account that the parties have already appeared, the parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court, i.e. the Court of the District Judge, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati on 16.11.2022 on which date the First Appellate Court shall fix a date for hearing the appeal in terms with the observation made herein above and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Taking into account that the suit has been filed in the year 2004 and the appeal is of the year 2015, the First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the said appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within 4 (four) months from the appearance of the parties before it. 16. In view of the above observation and direction, the instant appeal stands disposed of.