JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this appeal has been tagged along with Second Appeal No. 62 of 2023 as they arises out of the same proceeding. 2. He submits that in Second Appeal No. 62 of 2023 the substantial question of law was framed vide order No. 6 dated 22.07.2024. He has also submitted that the substantial question of law be framed in Second Appeal No. 99 of 2023. 3. The learned counsel has submitted that in the present case at the stage of title suit the pleader commissioner report was submitted and the final decree was passed. Subsequently, at the instance of defendant No. 16, pleader commissioner was appointed afresh and thereafter another decree was passed. He has submitted that once the final decree was passed, the court became functus officio and consequently, he has referred the substantial question of law Nos. I and III as framed in memo of appeal which is quoted as under:- I . Whether the Court becomes functus officio after preparation of Final Decree and therefore, registering an application filed by the defendant no. 16 in the year 2011 was itself beyond jurisdiction and the entire proceeding thereafter is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside? III . Whether without setting aside of final decree dated 30.07.2010 by any higher Court, a fresh final decree could have been prepared? 4. Considering the aforesaid submission, the second appeal no. 99 of 2023 is admitted and will be heard on aforesaid substantial questions of law. 5. At this, the learned counsel for the appellant in S.A. No. 62 of 2023 Mr. Birendar Kumar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the sole respondent in S.A. No. 99 of 2023 and undertakes to file Vakalatnama within a period of two weeks. 6. The records has already been received from the concerned court. S.A. No. 62 of 2023 with S.A. No. 99 of 2023 7. Let these matter be posted for final disposal on 25 th March, 2025.