JUDGMENT : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2013 passed in R.A.No.556/2011 by the Learned Fast Track Court, Hunsur, Mysore District, and the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2011 passed in O.S.No.123/2007 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendant Nos.6 to 9, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, and the other respondents were the other defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Subbegowda had three sons, by name, Maliyappa, Subbegowda and K.S.Puttegowda. The first two sons of Subbegowda passed away, and the third son by name Puttegowda, also died during the pendency of the suit. Defendant No.1 is the wife, and defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of the Late.Maliyappa. Defendant Nos.6 to 9 are the legal representatives of the Late.Subbegowda.K.S., and defendant No.10(a), defendant Nos.11, and 12 are the legal representatives of defendant No.10. All of them are living in a joint family status. The suit schedule property belongs to the defendants' family. The defendants' family was having a legal necessity. The defendants, for their legal necessity, and to clear the debts, agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for the sale consideration of Rs.1,55,250/-. On 26.06.2006, the plaintiff and defendants entered into the sale agreement and on the date of execution of the sale agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount, and at the time of executing and signing the above said agreement, the defendant Nos.4, 7 and 10 were present, and signed the said agreement. Further, agreed to execute the registered sale deed by all the defendants. 4. The plaintiff, believing defendant Nos.4, 7 and 10, paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount. It was agreed that, the defendants to execute the registered sale deed within 6 months from the date of execution of the sale agreement. Further, agreed to execute the registered sale deed by all the defendants. 4. The plaintiff, believing defendant Nos.4, 7 and 10, paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount. It was agreed that, the defendants to execute the registered sale deed within 6 months from the date of execution of the sale agreement. Furthermore, it was agreed that, to change the Katha in their name from defendant No.10’s deceased father’s name and obtain all necessary documents for the purpose of executing the registered sale deed. It is contended that, plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of a contract. On 29.06.2006, defendant No.10 received another sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff for the change of Katha, and further, received Rs.10,000/- on 30.09.2006 from the plaintiff. Thus, defendant No.10 had received Rs.70,000/- from the plaintiff towards part of the sale consideration amount. The defendants did not obtain the relevant documents for the purpose of execution of the registered sale deed. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 23.03.2007 to the defendant Nos.3, 7 and 10, calling upon them to receive the balance sale consideration amount, and execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No.7 replied to the legal notice, denying the execution of the sale agreement and receipt of Rs.70,000/- towards the sale consideration amount. Hence, a cause of action arises for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of a contract. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 5. Defendant Nos.3 and 10 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also denied the execution of the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff, and receipt of Rs.70,000/- from the plaintiff, and hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 6. Defendant Nos.6 to 9 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also the execution of the sale agreement, payment of Rs.10,000/- towards advance sale consideration amount, and it is contended that there is no such sale agreement executed between the defendants and plaintiff. Hence, the question of performing their part of the contract would not arise, and it is contended that defendant Nos.6 to 9 are not aware of the receipt of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff for the change of Katha, also not aware of the receipt of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff on 30.09.2006. Hence, the question of performing their part of the contract would not arise, and it is contended that defendant Nos.6 to 9 are not aware of the receipt of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff for the change of Katha, also not aware of the receipt of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff on 30.09.2006. It is contended that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice and defendant No.7 has replied to the legal notice. It is contended that the grandfather of defendant No.7 by name Subbegowda has 3 sons, namely Maliyappa, K.S.Subbegowda, who is the father of defendant No.7, and K.S.Puttegowda. During their life time, on 16.02.1971, there was a partition of the entire joint family properties by metes and bounds. It is contended that the land bearing Sy.No.127 was divided into 3 parts. One portion fell to the share of the father of defendant No.7, and on his demise, defendant Nos.6 to 9 have succeeded to the portion of the suit schedule property, and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that defendant Nos.6 to 9 are the absolute owners of the portion of the suit schedule property. Hence, it is contended that, except defendant Nos.3, 7 and 10, the other defendants are not parties to the sale agreement; hence, the sale agreement alleged to have been executed by defendant Nos.3, 7 and 10 is not binding on the other defendants and hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 7. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues. ISSUES 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants No.4, 7 & 10 have agreed to sell the suit schedule property in his favour for a sum of Rs. 1,55,250/- on 20-06-2006 after receiving an advance of Rs.10,000/- from him for the legal necessities of their family? 2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that 10th Defendant has received further sum of Rs.50,000/- on 29-06-2006 and Rs.10,000/- on 13-09-2006 from him as an advance out of the balance sale consideration amount? 3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has been ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract from the date of agreement of sale till filing of the suit? 3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has been ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract from the date of agreement of sale till filing of the suit? 4) Whether the defendant No.6 to 9 prove that 7th Defendant has put his signature on the blank stamp paper and blank paper at the request of the defendant in order to get the khatha changed and the said blank stamp paper and papers are concocted into suit document by the plaintiff colluding with 10th Defendant? 5) whether 10th Defendant proves that the plaintiff has obtained his signature on blank papers when he has mortgaged the suit schedule land in favour of the plaintiff for four years at the rate of Rs 5,000/- per year by receiving only Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff and concocted the said documents into suit documents? 6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance? 7) What order or decree? 8. The plaintiff, to prove his case, examined himself as PW1, examined three witnesses as PW2 to PW4 and marked 9 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. Conversely, defendant No.7 was examined as DW1, defendant No.1 was examined as DW2, and marked 4 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D4. 9. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides, and on assessing both, verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3, and 6 in the affirmative, issue Nos.4 and 5 in the negative, and issue No.7 as per the final order. 10. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed with cost, vide judgment dated 25.06.2011 and it is ordered and declared that the defendant shall receive a balance sale consideration amount of Rs.85,250/- and then execute the regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property within 60 days from the date of the judgment. In the event that the defendants fail to execute a registered sale deed, the plaintiff is at liberty to deposit the balance sale consideration amount into the Court and to obtain a regular sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property through the due process of law. 11. In the event that the defendants fail to execute a registered sale deed, the plaintiff is at liberty to deposit the balance sale consideration amount into the Court and to obtain a regular sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property through the due process of law. 11. Defendant Nos.6 to 9, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.123/2007, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.556/2011, and defendant Nos.1 to 5, 10(a), 11 and 12 also filed an appeal in R.A.No.680/2011 on the file of Learned Fast Track Court, Hunsur, Mysuru District. 12. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration:- 1. Whether the defendant No.10 is the kartha of the joint family consisting himself and other defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.1,55,250/- on 26.06.2006 and received earnest money of Rs.10,000/- and there after received an additional consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- on 29.06.2006 and Rs.10,000/- on 30.09.2006? 2.Whether the defendants proves that the suit schedule property is not available for sale since there was already partition between themselves on 16.02.1970 itself? 3.Whether the plaintiff proves that he is ready and willing to perform his part of obligation under the agreement of sale? 4.Whether the impugned judgment and decree under appeal passed by the lower court is illegal, capricious, arbitrary which calls for interference of this Court? 13. The First Appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 3 in the affirmative, Point Nos.2 and 4 in the negative and Point No.5 as per the final order. The appeals filed by the defendants were dismissed vide judgment dated 13.02.2013 and the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.123/2007, dated 25.06.2011, was confirmed. Defendant Nos.6 to 9, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal. 15. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant Nos.6 to 9. 16. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.6 to 9 submits that, defendant Nos.8 and 9 were not the parties to the sale agreement alleged to have been executed by defendant Nos.3, 7 and 10 in favour of the plaintiff. He submits that, there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6, 8 and 9. 16. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.6 to 9 submits that, defendant Nos.8 and 9 were not the parties to the sale agreement alleged to have been executed by defendant Nos.3, 7 and 10 in favour of the plaintiff. He submits that, there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6, 8 and 9. Both the Courts below, without considering the said aspect, has passed the judgment against the defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6, 8 and 9. He also submits that, the First Appellate Court, being the final fact finding Court, is required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. He submits that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is not in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC. He submits that the First Appellate Court has not re-appreciated the entire evidence placed on record by the parties. Hence, the matter requires reconsideration by the first appellate Court. Further, to buttress his arguments, he has placed a reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation reported in 2024 INSC 401 . Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the appeal. 17. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the defendants, and they have agreed to sell the suit schedule property for family and legal necessity. He submits that the sale agreement executed by defendant Nos.3, 7, and 10 is binding on the other defendants, as the sale is for legal and family necessity. He also submits that, both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the entire evidence placed on record, and concurrently recorded a finding of facts against the defendants. He also submits that, during the pendency of this instant appeal, the executing Court has already executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, on these grounds, he submits that, the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are just and proper and do not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 18. Hence, on these grounds, he submits that, the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are just and proper and do not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 18. This Court vide order dated 02.06.2025 recasted the substantial question of law as follows: ""Whether the defendant Nos.6 to 9 proves that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is not in compliance of Order XLI rule 31 of CPC?" 19. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Reg.Substantial Question of law: 20. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the plaint averments in the examination in chief. He deposed that, suit schedule property is the joint family property of the defendants, and the defendants needed money. Defendant No.7 approached the plaintiff and requested to purchase the suit schedule property for the sale consideration of Rs.1,55,250/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for the aforesaid consideration amount, and accordingly, defendant No.7 has received Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff and accordingly, defendant Nos.3, 7 and 10 executed the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, it was agreed that, the plaintiff to pay the balance consideration amount within 6 months from the date of execution of sale agreement, and get execute a registered sale deed. It was also agreed that the defendants should obtain relevant documents for the execution of the registered sale deed. Defendants did not obtain the necessary documents. The plaintiff, having fed up with the delaying attitude got issued a notice calling upon to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. Defendant No.7 replied to the legal notice, denying the averments made in it. The plaintiff, to establish the execution of the sale agreement, produced the documents. Ex.P1 is the original sale agreement executed in favour of the plaintiff regarding the suit property on 26.06.2006. Ex.P2 is the RTC extract standing in the name of the ancestors of the defendants. Ex.P3 is the certificate of the schedule boundary Ex.P4 is the genealogical tree of the family of the defendants. Ex.P5 is the office copy of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff calling upon the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. Ex.P3 is the certificate of the schedule boundary Ex.P4 is the genealogical tree of the family of the defendants. Ex.P5 is the office copy of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff calling upon the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. Ex.P6 to Ex.P8 are the acknowledgements which disclose that the legal notice issued by the plaintiff was served on the defendants. Ex.P9 is the reply notice issued by defendant No.7 to Ex.P5. 21. Further, the plaintiff also examined three witnesses as PW2 to PW4, the witnesses being PW2 and PW3, and the scribe as PW4 , who have deposed that defendant Nos.3,7 and 10 agreed to sell the suit schedule property, and received the part of the sale consideration amount of Rs.70,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a sale agreement as per Ex.P1. 22. In rebuttal, defendant No.7 was examined as DW1, who reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief, and also produced the documents. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of the mutation extract Ex.D2 to Ex.D4 are the pahanis During the course of cross examination of DW1, defendant No.7 denied the execution of Ex.P1 and receipt of Rs.70,000/- from the plaintiff. 23. Further, defendant No.1 is also examined as DW2. She has supported the case of the defendants, and further, the trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence on record, held that the plaintiff has proved the execution of the sale agreement, and receipt of Rs.70,000/- as an advance consideration and also that the plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.123/2011, preferred the appeals in R.A.No.556/2011 and R.A.No.680/2011 on the file of the Learned Fast Track Court, Hunsur, Mysuru District. 24. From the perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, the First Appellate Court except extracting the judgments of this Court, has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The first Appellate Court, being the last fact finding Court, is required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the first appellate Court, the said judgment is not in compliance with order XLI Rule 31 of CPC. 25. The first Appellate Court, being the last fact finding Court, is required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the first appellate Court, the said judgment is not in compliance with order XLI Rule 31 of CPC. 25. The First Appellate Court has not correctly framed the points for consideration, and has not assigned the reasons to confirm the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The defendants have raised several contentions before the First Appellate Court, including that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 2, 4 to 6, 8 and 9, and defendant Nos.3, 7 and 10 have absolutely no right to enter into the sale agreement on behalf of the aforesaid defendants. The said aspect was not adequately considered by the first appellate Court, and further, the defendants have also raised grounds, that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was not sustainable in law as per Sections, 16 and 17 of the Specific relief Act. 26. The First Appellate Court has not correctly appreciated the entire evidence on record. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation reported in 2024 INSC 401 , wherein it is held that, there has to be a substantial compliance with the mandate of Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC. 27. The first appellate Court, being the final fact finding Court, is required to frame the points for consideration, and must assign the reasons, and answer all the issues framed by the Trial Court. As observed above, the first appellate Court has not adequately answered each issue framed by the Trial Court. Thus, the matter requires reconsideration by the First Appellate Court, and the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is not in compliance with order XLI Rule 31 of CPC. 28. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that, the judgment and decree passed in RA.No.680/2011 cannot be disturbed, and to buttress his arguments, he has placed a reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Banarasi Vs. Ram Phal reported in AIR 2003 SC 1989 . Hence, the judgment and decree passed in RA.No.556/2011 may be set aside, and the matter may be remitted. 29. Ram Phal reported in AIR 2003 SC 1989 . Hence, the judgment and decree passed in RA.No.556/2011 may be set aside, and the matter may be remitted. 29. I have perused the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. In the said case, the plaintiff has sought two reliefs. There are two relief's prayed for. One was refused, while the other was granted and the former is not inseparably connected with or necessarily dependent on the other. In an appeal against the latter in the formal way, cannot be granted in favour of the respondent by the appellate Court while exercising its power under Order 41, Rule 33 of the CPC. Admittedly, in the instant case, the relief sought by the plaintiff is common against all the defendants. To consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine order 41 Rule 4 of CPC provided that; "4. One of several plaintiff or defendants may obtain reversal of whole decree where it proceeds on ground common to all. - When there are more plaintiffs or more defendants then one in a suit, and the decree appealed from proceeds on any ground common to all the plaintiffs or to all the defendants, any one of the plaintiffs or of the defendants may appeal from the whole decree, and thereupon the Appellate Court may reverse or vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs or the defendants, as the case may be." 30. I would like to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ratan Lal Shah Vs Firm Lalmandas Chhadamma lal & Anr reported in AIR 1970 SC 108 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "3. In our view the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. The appeal could not be dismissed on the ground that Mohan Singh was not served with the notice of appeal, nor could the appeal be dismissed on the ground that there was a possibility of two conflicting decrees. In our view the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. The appeal could not be dismissed on the ground that Mohan Singh was not served with the notice of appeal, nor could the appeal be dismissed on the ground that there was a possibility of two conflicting decrees. Order 41, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: "Where there are more plaintiffs or more defendants than one in a suit, and the decree appealed from proceeds on any ground common to all the plaintiffs or to all the defendants, any one of the plaintiffs or of the defendants may appeal from the whole decree, and thereupon the Appellate Court may reverse or vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs or defendants, as the case may be." The object of the rule is to enable one of the parties to a suit to obtain relief in appeal when the decree appealed from proceeds on a ground common to him and others. The Court in such an appeal may reverse or vary the decree in favour of all the parties who are in the same interest as the appellant. There was some conflict of judicial opinion in the High Courts on the question whether power under Order 41, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be exercised where all the parties against whom a decree is passed on a ground which is common to them are not impleaded in the appeal The preponderance of authority in the High Courts was that even in the absence of a person against whom a decree has been passed on a ground common with the appellant the appeal was maintainable and appropriate relief may be granted. It is, however, unnecessary to examine those decisions for, in our judgment, the question has been considered by this Court in Karam Singh Sobti v. Shri Pratap Chand, (1964) 4 SCR 647 ( AIR 1964 SC 1305 ). In that case a landlord of certain premises filed an action in ejectment against the tenant and the sub-tenant in respect of premises on the ground that the tenant had sub-let the premises without the landlord's consent. The Trial Judge decreed the suit holding that the land-lord had not acquiesced in the sub- letting. The sub-tenant alone appealed to the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge who set aside the order of the Trial Court. The Trial Judge decreed the suit holding that the land-lord had not acquiesced in the sub- letting. The sub-tenant alone appealed to the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge who set aside the order of the Trial Court. It was urged before this Court that the appeal by the sub- tenant to the Subordinate Judge was incompetent, because the tenant against whom a decree in ejectment was passed had not appealed. On certain questions which are not material for the purpose of this judgment, there was difference of opinion between Sarkar, J., on the one hand, and S. K. Das Acting C. J. and Hidayatullah J., on the other, but the Court unanimously held in that case that the appeal was maintainable before the Subordinate Judge, even though the tenant had not appealed against the order of the Court of First Instance. Sarkar, J., observed at p 663: The suit had been filed both against the tenant and the sub-tenant, being respectively the Association and the appellant. One decree had been passed by the trial Judge against both. The appellant had his own right to appeal from that decree. That right could not be affected by the Association's decision not to file an appeal. There was one decree and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to have it set aside even though thereby the Association would also be freed from the decree. He could say that that decree was and should be set aside as it was passed on the erroneous finding that the respondent had not acquiesced in the sub-letting by the Association to him. He could challenge that decree on any ground available. The lower appellate Court was therefore, quite competent in the appeal by the appellant from the joint decree in ejectment against him and the Association, to give him whatever relief he was found entitled to, even though the Association had filed no appeal." With that view S. K. Das, Acting C. J. and Hidayatullah, J, agreed: see p. 652. It is true that in that case the tenant was made a party to the appeal before the Subordinate Judge. But the judgment of the Court proceeded upon a larger ground that the sub-tenant had a right to appeal against the decree passed against him and that right was not affected by the tenant's decision not to file an appeal. 4. But the judgment of the Court proceeded upon a larger ground that the sub-tenant had a right to appeal against the decree passed against him and that right was not affected by the tenant's decision not to file an appeal. 4. Counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the appeal filed by Ratan Lal if it be heard may possibly result in an order which may prejudicially affect Mohan Singh, and if Mohan Singh has no opportunity of being heard no decree may be passed against him, for to do so would be contrary to the fundamental rules of natural justice. But in the appeal filed by Ratan Lal there is no possibility of a decree being passed which may impose a more onerous liability upon Mohan Singh. The Trial Court has passed a decree against Ratan Lal Mohan Singh jointly and severally. Mohan Singh is liable for the full amount of the claim of the plaintiffs. If the appeal filed by Ratan Lal succeeds, the Court may reduce the liability of Mohan Singh, but there may conceivably be no order by the Court operating to the prejudice of Mohan Singh in the appeal.. 31 The Hon'ble Apex Court held that, passing of contradicting result would be a conflict with the fundamental rules of natural justice, and further, even though the other defendants have not challenged the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the Court may stay the finding recorded against them in the Court below regarding any issues ought to have been in his favour, and they may take cross objections as per order 41 Rule 22 of CPC. As the judgment and decree passed by the First appellate Court is a common judgment in R.A.No.556/2011, and R.A.No.680/2011 and the said appeals are arising out of the suit filed by the plaintiff. There is no dispute regarding the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case referred to above. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff does not apply to the case on hand. There is no dispute regarding the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case referred to above. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff does not apply to the case on hand. Regarding non challenging of the judgment passed in R.A.No.680/2011, to consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine Order 41 rule 31 of CPC which provides that the appellate Court can exercise power to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require and such power may be exercised in favour of all or any of the parties even though they may not have been filed any objection or appeal. The Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC in the case of Choudhary Sahu (Dead) by LR's V/s State of Bihar reported in AIR 1982 SC 98 , wherein it is held as under The object of this rule is to empower the appellate Court to do complete justice between the parties. Under this rule the Court has power to make a proper decree notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Choudhary (referred supra), this Court, by exercising the power under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC, opines that the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.680/2011 is liable to be set aside. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER 1. The Appeal is allowed. 2. The judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.556/2011 and R.A.No.680/2011 are set aside. 3. The appeals are restored. 4. The First appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal in compliance with order 41 Rule 31 of CPC after providing an opportunity for hearing to both parties. Further, the parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 14.07.2025 without awaiting any further notice. 5. The office is directed to transmit the records to the first appellate Court forthwith. 6. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. 7. As the appeal is of the year 2011, the appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.