ORDER : 1. The present appeal, under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arises from the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.09.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.46 of 2014, whereby the judgment and decree dated 14.05.1998 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Regular Civil Suit No.40 of 1999 allowing the suit in favour of the Government, is reversed. 2. Heard learned advocates. 3. While considering the pleadings of the parties, the following suggested substantial questions of law, which were subsequently added by the appellant by way of draft amendment, which are required to be considered. (i) Whether the learned appellate court had erred in not considering the Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC ? (ii) Whether the learned appellate court had erred in not considering the evidence on record, particularly those relied by the trial court ? 4. It transpires that while considering the appeal by the learned appellate Court below, it has framed the following points for its determination in paragraph 7 and findings are recorded qua them accordingly in the impugned judgment, which are reproduced as under : (i) Whether the trial court has failed to consider that the order of the District Collector, Gandhinagar dated 14.05.1998 is illegal and require to be set aside ? [In the affirmative] (ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, dated 27.01.2014 in Regular Civil Suit No.40 of 1999 require any interference ? [In the affirmative] (iii) What order ? [As per final order] 5.1 I have also perused the remaining portion of the judgment impugned whereby the learned appellate Court below has proceeded mainly on the ground that when the case is classified as quasi judicial, the duty to follow completely the principles of interest of justice and on that basis only, the appeal is proceeded further and decided by reversing the judgment of the trial Court passed in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 1999 dated 27.01.2014. In my opinion, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC is required to be complied with, which is as under : “O.XLI R.31. In my opinion, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC is required to be complied with, which is as under : “O.XLI R.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; and (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.” 5.2 The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Somakka versus K.P. Basavaraj reported 2022 (0) AIJEL SC 6942 = (2022) 8 SCC 261 , more particularly paras 29 and 31 thereof, which are as under : “29. Further following the above, there have been a series of judgments by this Court; 29.1 In Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 (relevant portion of para 15) is reproduced below: "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 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. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it." 29.2 In H.K.N. Swami vs. Irshad Basith, (2005) 10 SCC 243 this Court again reiterated the same principle in paragraph 3 of the judgment: "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 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. 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 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." 29.3 In 2015, this Court again in Vinod Kumar vs. Gangadhar, (2015) 1 SCC 391 considering the previous judgment recorded its view in paras 18 and 19 which are reproduced hereunder: "18. In our considered opinion, the High Court did not deal with any of the submissions urged by the appellant and/or the respondent nor it took note of the grounds taken by the appellant in grounds of appeal nor made any attempt to appreciate the evidence adduced by the parties in the light of the settled legal principles and decided case law applicable to the issues arising in the case with a view to find out as to whether the judgment of the Trial Court can be sustained or not and if so, how, and if not, why. 19. Being the first appellate court, it was the duty of the High Court to have decided the first appeal keeping in view the scope and powers conferred on it under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC mentioned above. It was unfortunately not done, thereby, resulting in causing prejudice to the appellant whose valuable right to prosecute in the first appeal on facts and law was adversely affected which, in turn, deprived him of a hearing in the appeal in accordance with law. It is for this reason, we unable to uphold the impugned judgement of the High Court." 29.4 Very recently, this Court in 2022 (to which one of us, Brother Abdul Nazeer, J. was a member) in Manjual and others vs. Shyamsundar and Others, (2022) 3 SCC 90 reiterated the same view in para 8 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder: "8. Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') provides for filing of an appeal from the decree passed by a court of original jurisdiction. Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') provides for filing of an appeal from the decree passed by a court of original jurisdiction. Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC provides the guidelines to the appellate court for deciding the appeal. This rule mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state (a) points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. Thus, the appellate court has the jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the Trial Court. It is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings. The appellate court's jurisdiction involves a rehearing of appeal on questions of law as well as fact. The first appeal is a valuable right, and, at that stage, all questions of fact and law decided by the Trial Court are open for reconsideration. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect conscious application of mind and must record the court's findings, supported by reasons for its decision in respect of all the issues, along with the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties. Needless to say, the first appellate court is required to comply with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and non-observance of these requirements lead to infirmity in the judgment." 31. The next question which arises is that where the judgment of the Appellate Court is being set aside on the ground of non-consideration of the evidence on record, the matter would normally be required to be remanded to the First Appellate Court, whether in the facts and circumstances this case requires a remand. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the suit was instituted in the year 1991, more than three decades ago; the evidence discussed by the Trial Court is neither disputed nor demolished by the learned Counsel for the respondent. As such, we do not find any good reason to remand the matter to the High Court. As such, we do not find any good reason to remand the matter to the High Court. We are of the view that in order to put a quietus to the litigation and relieve the parties from any further harassment, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and confirm the judgment and decree of the Trial Court to the extent it relates to item no. 3 of Schedule 'A' property described in the plaint, i.e. to say that the appellant and the respondent would be entitled to share each in the said property. The Trial Court shall accordingly proceed to draw out the proceedings for final decree of partition.” 5.3 Further, the present respondent is old aged lady and the learned appellate Court below has committed apparent error and the findings of the learned appellate Court below can be considered not in accordance with the provisions of Order 41 and Rule 31 of the CPC, as the appellate Court has failed to frame the proper point for determination and accordingly, failed to reappreciate the entire evidence. Therefore, the order of the learned appellate Court below is required to be interfered with by quashing and setting aside the impugned order. 6. In view of above, the following order is passed. 6.1 The impugned judgment and decree dated 07.09.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.46 of 2014 is hereby set aside. 6.2 The matter is remanded back to the learned lower appellate Court for fresh consideration. 6.3 It is directed that the learned lower appellate Court shall reconsider and decide Regular Civil Appeal No.46 of 2014, afresh, by giving proper opportunities to the parties and after framing the proper points for determination under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC, by giving proper findings, considering the pleadings and evidence on record, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible but preferably on or before 31.07.2024. 6.4 This appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 7.1 It is expected that the parties shall cooperate the proceedings before the learned appellate Court below and will not ask for any unnecessary adjournments. 7.2 The learned appellate Court below shall decide the appeal afresh without influence of any order/s except the observations made hereinabove. 8. In view of above, civil Application would not survive and is disposed of accordingly.