ORDER : 1. A challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dated 07.06.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short, “the Board”) by which the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2018 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short “the RAA’) has been quashed and set-aside and the matter has been remanded back to the RAA to decide the first appeal strictly in compliance with the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a suit for declaration and partition was filed by the respondents against the petitioners before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Buhana (for short “the SDO”) and the same was decreed vide judgment dated 20.06.2016 against which a first appeal under Section 223 of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT , 1955 (for short, “the Act of 1955”) was filed by the petitioners, after considering the entire facts, material, evidence and documents available on record, the RAA passed a reasoned and cogent judgment allowing the appeal. 3. Counsel submits that a second appeal, against the order dated 10.02.2018, was preferred by the respondents, before the Board and the same was partly allowed and the judgment passed by the RAA has been quashed and set-aside not only on merits, but also on a technical count that at the time of passing of the judgment, the RAA has not formulated points for determination and has not followed the provisions provided under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. Learned counsel submits that each and every aspect of the matter was taken into account by the RAA and only thereafter, the judgment was passed by the RAA, which does not call for any interference even then, the Board has unnecessarily remanded the matter to the RAA for its fresh adjudication, after following the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. 4. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. Amalorpavam and Ors. Vs. R.C. Diocese of Madurai and Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 224 decided on 06.03.2006. 5. 4. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. Amalorpavam and Ors. Vs. R.C. Diocese of Madurai and Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 224 decided on 06.03.2006. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that while deciding the appeal, the RAA was supposed to comply with the mandatory provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC and without formulating points for determination and without formulating the issues, the judgment in question was straightaway passed by the RAA. Learned counsel submits that this fact was noticed and well-appreciated by the Board, while entertaining the second appeal submitted by the respondents and the matter has been rightly remanded to the RAA for its fresh adjudication, after making compliance of the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 6. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Karuppuraj Vs. M. Ganesan (Civil Appeal No. 6014- 6015/2021) decided on 04.10.2021 and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ramsahay & Ors. Vs. Smt. Shyopyari Devi & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4968/2023) decided on 06.12.2023. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 8. Perusal of the record indicates that a suit for declaration and partition was filed by the respondents against the petitioners before the Court of SDO and the same was decreed vide judgment dated 20.06.2016, against which the petitioners preferred a first appeal before the RAA which was allowed whereby the judgment passed by the SDO was quashed and set-aside. 9. Perusal of the record indicates that a suit for declaration and partition was filed by the respondents against the petitioners before the Court of SDO and the same was decreed vide judgment dated 20.06.2016, against which the petitioners preferred a first appeal before the RAA which was allowed whereby the judgment passed by the SDO was quashed and set-aside. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the respondents submitted second appeal before the Board, the Board was of the view that the First Appeal was decided by the RAA, without making compliance of the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC and accordingly, the second appeal was partly allowed vide judgment dated 07.06.2022 and the judgment passed by the RAA was quashed and set-aside and the matter was remitted to the RAA for its fresh adjudication in terms of the Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. The Order 41 Rule 31 CPC provides a guideline for the appellate court to be followed while deciding the matter. The relevant provisions of the aforesaid Order 41 and Rule 31 of the CPC is extracted 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.” 10. Bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule 31(a) to (d) of order 41 of the CPC makes it obligatory on the part of the Appellate Court to determine the points for determination and then, record the reasons for reversing/ varying or quashing the judgment passed by the Sub-ordinate Court. 11. It is settled proposition of law that the appeal is continuation of the proceedings of the original Court. Ordinarily, the appellate jurisdiction involves re-hearing on the law as well as on the facts and the jurisdiction is invoked whenever the jurisdiction of the First Appellate Court is questioned by the person aggrieved. 11. It is settled proposition of law that the appeal is continuation of the proceedings of the original Court. Ordinarily, the appellate jurisdiction involves re-hearing on the law as well as on the facts and the jurisdiction is invoked whenever the jurisdiction of the First Appellate Court is questioned by the person aggrieved. The first appeal is a valuable right of any person and therein, all questions of fact and law, decided by the trial Court, are open for re-consideration, hence, under such circumstances, the First Appellate Court is required to address itself with all the issues and decide the case by giving cogent reasons. The First Appellate Court must record its findings only after dealing with all the issues of law as well as facts with all the evidence, oral as well as documentary, so led by both the sides. The judgment of the First Appellate Court must reflect application of mind and then, record the findings duly supported by reasons on all the issues and contentions raised by the respective parties. 12. While deciding the appeal, the Appellate Court must ensure compliance of the requirements contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. 13. In Vinod Kumar Vs. Gangadhar , 2015 (1) SCC 391, the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the principles required to be borne in mind, while disposing of the first appeal in para 15 and the same is reproduced as under: “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: “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; and (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. 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. 14. In Shasidhar and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Uma Mathad and Anr. 2015 (11) SCC 269 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 21 as under: “21. Being the first appellate court, it was, therefore, the duty of the High Court 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.” 15. In the case of Malluru Mallappa (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Kuruvathappa and Ors. 2020 (4) SCC 313 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para 18, 19 and 20 as under:- 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. Kuruvathappa and Ors. 2020 (4) SCC 313 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para 18, 19 and 20 as under:- 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 (2015) 11 SCC 269 with the requirement of Order XLI 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 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 XLI Rule 31 of the 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. 20. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. The judgment and decree of the High Court in RFA No.1731 of 2006 dated 09.02.2012, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. Saraswathi (supra) has held in para 13, 14 and 15 as under: “13. The judgment and decree of the High Court in RFA No.1731 of 2006 dated 09.02.2012, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. Saraswathi (supra) has held in para 13, 14 and 15 as under: “13. Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal and further without even mentioning the factual narration of the case set up by the parties, the findings of the two Courts as to how they dealt with the issues arising in the case in their respective jurisdiction and without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on the issues and why the findings of two Courts below deserve to be upheld or reversed, while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light of legal principles applicable to the case, it is difficult for this Court to sustain such order of the Division Bench. In our opinion, the disposal of the LPA by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be said to be in conformity with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). 14. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case which must contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues in support of its conclusion. It is really unfortunate that the Division Bench failed to keep in mind this principle while disposing of the appeal and passed a cryptic and unreasoned order. Such order undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties because it deprived them to know the reasons as to why one party has won and other has lost. We can never countenance the manner in which such order was passed by the High Court which has compelled us to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits. 15. We can never countenance the manner in which such order was passed by the High Court which has compelled us to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits. 15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in view our observations made supra.” 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently emphasized the need for assigning reasons by Courts in support of its conclusion and while doing so the Court must deal with all the issues raised by the parties to the lis. Indeed, the Hon’ble Apex Court has made the following, pertinent observations on this issue, in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jai Prakash Singh & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 712 which read as under: “7.... 11. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court’s judgment not sustainable. 12….Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The ‘inscrutable face of a sphinx’ is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.” 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Karuppuraj Vs. M. Ganesan (supra) has consistently emphasized the need for assigning reasons in support of the Court’s conclusion. 19. The ‘inscrutable face of a sphinx’ is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.” 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Karuppuraj Vs. M. Ganesan (supra) has consistently emphasized the need for assigning reasons in support of the Court’s conclusion. 19. The Appellate Court is supposed to pass a reasoned judgment keeping in mind the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. Indeed, this being a mandatory requirement of law, its non-compliance by the Appellate Court renders the judgment bad in law. 20. In the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court finds no force in the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner, that while deciding the second appeal, the Board of Revenue could have decided the appeal, on its merits, without remanding the matter to the First Appellate Court i.e., the RAA, because the RAA has not decided the first appeal in accordance with the mandatory provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. Hence the judgement passed by the RAA was in contravention of the procedure contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC without considering the value of the mandatory provision of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of G. Saramathi (Supra) and Mallani Mallapa (Supra) has not only quashed the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court but also remanded the same to the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits, after following the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. 21. The First Appellate Court should be reminded that mandate of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the First Appellate Court is the last authority to revisit the facts and the first appellate proceedings are in continuation of the suit, as such it is expected that the First Appellate Court should give a categorical finding on the relevant issues and grant such relief to the concerned in accordance with the law. While deciding an appeal, the First Appellate Court is required to adhere to the mandate contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC without any deviation. 22. While deciding an appeal, the First Appellate Court is required to adhere to the mandate contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC without any deviation. 22. In the instant case, the judgment passed by the RAA does not satisfy the requirement of the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC, hence, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same has been rightly quashed and set- aside by the Board with clear and specific direction to the first appellate authority to decide all the issues on the basis of the evidence available on record. 23. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality in the judgment dated 07.06.2022 passed by the Board. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands rejected. 24. Stay application and all application (pending, if any) also stand dismissed. 25. Looking to the fact that the dispute between the parties pertains to the year 2010, it is expected from the RAA to make all possible endeavours to decide the First Appeal strictly accordance with the mandate contained under the Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC, expeditiously as early as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.