ORDER : 1. The instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of CPC against the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned 2 nd Additional District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the, “Appellate Court ”) in File No. 103/Appeal/Case No. 169/2019 titled, “ Chuni Lal Vs. Ajay Kumar and ors. ”, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2019 passed by the learned City Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the, “trial Court” ) in case titled, “ Chuni Lal Vs. Ajay Kumar and ors. ” has been set aside. 2. The specific case of the appellant is that the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) has filed a civil suit for declaration, declaring the irrevocable general Power of Attorney executed on 18.05.2004 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Jammu as illegal, unwarranted, fictitious, fraudulent, null and void along with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants therein from further acting on the Power of Attorney or alienating, changing the nature of property or transferring the same in any manner. The respondent No. 1 challenged the Power of Attorney on the ground that the same has been illegally obtained by proforma respondent No. 1 with respect to land measuring 05 Kanals 08-3/4 Marlas comprising under Khasra No. 615 min Khata No. 422, Khewat No. 45 situated at Salmeri, Tehsil Birpur, District Samba. It was further pleaded in the suit by the respondent that the alleged Attorney holder-Ajay Kumar, on the strength of the said Power of Attorney, had executed a Sale Deed in favour of the appellant as well as other proforma respondents with respect to the land mentioned supra. 3. The further fact of the matter is that appellants herein appeared before the learned trial Court and filed their written statements, wherein the appellants had denied the claim of the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) by taking number of preliminary and factual objections. The learned trial Court after careful examination of the record/submissions, pleadings of the parties and further considering the important fact that the respondent No. 1, has also filed a civil suit against the appellants herein and other defendants (proforma respondents), wherein he has challenged the Sale Deed dated 21.08.2004, which was executed by Ajay Kumar, i.e., Attorney Holder of respondent No. 1 on the basis of impugned Power of Attorney dated 18.05.2004 dismissed the suit of the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff). The learned Appellate Court while hearing the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1, allowed the appeal and passed the order impugned dated 17.12.2024, thereby remanded the case back to the trial Court (City Judge, Jammu). The appellants, thus, aggrieved of the same are challenging it on the following grounds:- “(i) That the order impugned is bad, illegal, perverse and against the settled legal preposition of law thus the same deserves to be dismissed. (ii) That the Learned Court of 2 nd Additional District Judge, Jammu while passing the order impugned has failed to appreciate the facts of the case in proper perspective being the final court of fact. Further the Court was under an obligation to see the maintainability of the suit at the first instance as well as the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court to adjudicate the instant suit and thereafter should have analyzed the impugned judgment passed by the Trial court vide order dated 25.10.2019 in absence of the proper adjudication of the case by the first appellate Court, the impugned order passed by the 2 nd Additional District Judge is liable to be set aside. iii. That the first appellate Court has failed to appreciate the observation made by the Trial Court with respect to the absence of cause of action when admittedly from the bare perusal of the plaint nothing has been pleaded by the plaintiff (respondent no. 1) regarding the same. So far the cause of action is concerned, nor any date or place of cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint as such the appellate court while passing the impugned order has fallen into error in regard to the cause of action to file the suit declaring the power of attorney dated 18.05.2004 as such the order impugned being passed against the law and facts thus the same deserves to be set aside. iv. That the accrual of a cause of action to the plaintiff (respondent no. 1) is an important aspect which the Court was required to consider while filing the suit before the Trial Court when as a matter of fact the power of attorney was executed on 18.05.2004 by the respondent no. 1 in favour of the respondent no. iv. That the accrual of a cause of action to the plaintiff (respondent no. 1) is an important aspect which the Court was required to consider while filing the suit before the Trial Court when as a matter of fact the power of attorney was executed on 18.05.2004 by the respondent no. 1 in favour of the respondent no. 2 with respect to the land measuring 08 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land and the suit challenging the abovesaid power of attorney was filed on 08.09.2015 by the respondent no. 1 against the appellants and the proforma respondents which is beyond the limitation period for challenging a document under the Limitation Act 1963. The first appellate court which passed the impugned order has lost its sight over this aspect and got diverted from the important question regarding the fact of accrual of cause of action to the plaintiff to file the suit. v. That the first appellate Court being the final court of fact was under a legal obligation to decide, consider the case by going through the plaint, written statement as well as documents and evidence but the first appellate Court has failed to appreciate the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents submitted in the case. From the bare perusal of the plaint and written statement, it is very clear that the suit was barred by the limitation and the first appellate Court completely failed to give any finding on the issue of limitation as such the order being passed by ignoring the settled preposition, thus the same deserves to be set aside. vi. That the first appellate Court’s observation that the trial has made hypothetical observation in the judgment dated 25.10.2019 regarding the pendency of the suits with respect to challenging the sale deeds is misconceived. vi. That the first appellate Court’s observation that the trial has made hypothetical observation in the judgment dated 25.10.2019 regarding the pendency of the suits with respect to challenging the sale deeds is misconceived. The appellate Court has not minutely scrutinize the written statement as well as the evidence wherein it has been pleased that the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff in main suit) has already filed similar suits with respect to the declaration declaring the sale deeds executed on the basis of Power of Attorney dated 18.05.2004 and the suit is subsequently filed at Jammu, thereby challenging the Power of Attorney dated 18.05.2004, as such, the appellate Court while passing the order impugned should have considered the preliminary objections taken by the appellants herein in the written statement which were considered and appreciated by the Trial Court though in ex-parte and passed an order dated 25.10.2019 thereby dismissed the suit "Chuni Lal Vs Ajay Kumar and Others" filed by the respondent no. 1. Therefore, the order impugned being passed without appreciating the facts of the case as such deserves to be set aside. vii.That the first appellate Court being the last fact- finding court should have considered an important aspect involved in the case i.e. whether the Trial Court has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the suit filed by the respondent no. 1 when admittedly suit property is outside the jurisdiction of the Court and the respondent No. 1 in order to challenge the sale deed dated 21.08.2004 registered on 21.09.2004 executed on the strength of Power of Attorney impugned in the suit has filed Civil suit before the Civil Court situated at District Samba. The appellate Court while passing the impugned order totally failed to appreciate and consider the important aspect involved in the case thereby leaving a lacuna in the order impugned which if ignored will cause grave injustice and prejudice to the rights of the appellants as such the order impugned is bad and needs to be set-aside. viii. The appellate Court while passing the impugned order totally failed to appreciate and consider the important aspect involved in the case thereby leaving a lacuna in the order impugned which if ignored will cause grave injustice and prejudice to the rights of the appellants as such the order impugned is bad and needs to be set-aside. viii. That another important glaring error committed by the appellant Court while passing the impugned order is that Court while remanding the case to the Trial Court directed the Trial Court to "hear and decide the matter a fresh in the light of the averments contained in the plaints as well as evidence lead in support of if as ex-parte in the case and in case the Trial Court requires further witness/evidence with respect to fake/forged irrevocable general power of attorney, the same shall be taken on record" this observation of the appellate court has the effect of deciding the suit in an appeal itself. The appellate Court in the impugned order has held that the Trial Court can only consider the plaint, ex-parte evidence of respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) and has further certified that the Power of Attorney which is subject matter of dispute is fake and forged and in case additional evidence is required that can be lead only to strengthen the contentions of the respondent No. 1, this observation of the appellate Court has closed doors of the appellants who were contesting the appeal with tooth and nail and further the appellate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and passed the order impugned in a biased and predetermined manner thereby giving benefit to the respondent no. 1 (plaintiff) and deprived the appellants of their right to contest, defend and lead evidence in support of their claim. Thus the order impugned passed by the Court of 2 nd Additional District Judge being biased requires to be set-aside. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that while remanding the case back to the learned trial Court by the Appellate Court, no adequate opportunity of being heard was provided to the appellants. He further submits that he has no objection in case, the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court, however, he is aggrieved of the direction only to the extent that he has not been given a fair opportunity of being heard. 5. He further submits that he has no objection in case, the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court, however, he is aggrieved of the direction only to the extent that he has not been given a fair opportunity of being heard. 5. After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appellants would feel satisfied in case, a direction is issued to the learned trial Court to hear the matter afresh after providing a fair opportunity of being heard to all the stakeholders including the appellants. 6. Since an innocuous prayer has been made, which will not prejudice the rights of any of the parties, this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case deems it proper to dispose of the instant petition without issuing formal notice to the respondents by directing the learned trial Court to hear the matter afresh after providing a fair and adequate opportunity of being heard to all the stakeholders including the appellants. 7. Viewed thus, in the given facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned 2 nd Additional District Judge, Jammu dated 17.12.2024 in File No. 103/Appeal/Case No. 169/2019 titled, “ Chuni Lal Vs. Ajay Kumar and others ”, by virtue of which, the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2019 passed by the learned City Judge has been set aside, is modified in light of the innocuous prayer by directing the learned trial Court to hear the matter afresh after providing a fair and adequate opportunity of being heard to all the stakeholders including the appellants. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall proceed expeditiously in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made by this Court while deciding the instant appeal. 8. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 24.03.2025. 9. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of along with all connected applications.