JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants against judgment and decree dated 05.12.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 0000060/2013 by learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar whereby judgment and decree dated 30.09.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kinnaur at Reckong Peo in Civil Suit No.24-1 of 2006 was affirmed. 2. Respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed a suit ( Civil Suit No. 24-1 of 2006) against the appellants and respondents No. 2 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) in respect of land comprised in Khewat Nos. 57 and 58, Khatauni Nos. 195 to 199, Khasra Nos. 53, 54, 55, 88, 89, 92, 94, 452, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 498, 524 total kitas 18, measuring 1-40-96 hectares, situated in Mauza Molgi, Pargana 15/20, Tehsil Rampur Bushahar, District Shimla (for short, “Suit Land”). It was alleged that the plaintiffs and defendants were joint owners of the suit land and a decree to that effect was prayed. Further, it was also prayed that the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rampur in partition case No.9/86 dated 17.01.1990 be declared illegal, wrong, void and without jurisdiction. In nutshell, the case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land was still joint and the claim of the defendants on the basis of an order of partition passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 17.01.1990 was wrong, illegal and not binding on their rights. As per plaintiff, in the partition proceedings held by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, when the file was sent to the field agency by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rampur, the plaintiff was never summoned and in this manner the plaintiff had been condemned unheard. In this manner violation of mandatory provisions of law was alleged. 3. The suit was contested by the appellants herein. In their written statement objections qua cause of action, locus standi, estoppel, limitation, valuation and the suit being barred under Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, were raised. It was alleged that the partition had been finalized in pursuance to the orders dated 17.01.1990 by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. The instrument of partition stood prepared and the partition had been implemented on spot also. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. It was alleged that the partition had been finalized in pursuance to the orders dated 17.01.1990 by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. The instrument of partition stood prepared and the partition had been implemented on spot also. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are joint owner in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP 2. Whether order of AC 1st Grade dated 17.1.1990 and subsequent mutation dated 11.3.1997 is to be declared null and void as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction? OPP 4. Whether the suit of plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act, conduct and omission? OPD 6. Whether the suit of plaintiffs is barred by limitation? OPD 7. Whether the suit of plaintiffs is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 9. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 10. Relief. Issues No. 1 to 3 were decided in affirmative. Remaining issues were decided in negative and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. The plaintiffs and defendants were declared as joint owners in possession of the suit land. The order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rampur dated 17.01.1990 and mutation No. 33 dated 11.3.1997, attested on its basis, were declared illegal, wrong, null and void. 5. In first appeal filed by the defendant No.1, the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2013 passed by learned trial Court has been affirmed. Hence this appeal. 6. This appeal has been admitted vide order dated 20.03.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether both the learned Courts below erred in appreciating the provisions of law applicable, pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them in its right perspective thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees? 2. Whether both the learned Courts below misread and mis-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, with special reference to statement of DW-11, and documents Exts. PW-1/C, PW-1/D, Mark ‘A’, Mark ‘X-I to X-5’ and Exts. DW-1/A to Ext.DW-1/D, thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees? 3. 2. Whether both the learned Courts below misread and mis-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, with special reference to statement of DW-11, and documents Exts. PW-1/C, PW-1/D, Mark ‘A’, Mark ‘X-I to X-5’ and Exts. DW-1/A to Ext.DW-1/D, thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees? 3. Whether impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below stand vitiated being contrary to the provisions of Order 20 Rule 5 of the CPC? 4. Whether jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred as per provisions of Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, but contrary findings recorded by Courts below vide impugned judgments and decrees, vitiated the same.” 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 8. In the first instance, I propose to deal with Substantial Question No.4; as it relates to the fundamental issue of jurisdiction of learned trial and appellate courts. 9. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.1, a specific objection to the following effect was taken as preliminary objection No.9: “That the suit is hit by the provisions of Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, therefore, the Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the same is liable to be dismissed for this reason alone.” 10. Thus, the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the same was put to question. 11. Relevant extract of Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act reads as under: “171. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters within the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers. – Except as otherwise provided by this Act- (1) A Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any matter which the State Government or a Revenue Officer is empowered by this Act, to dispose of or take cognizance of the manner in which the State Government or any Revenue Officer exercises any powers vested in it or him by or under this Act; and in particular- (2) a Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters, namely- (i) to (xvi) xxx xxx xxx (xvii) any claim for partition of an estate, holding or tenancy, or any question connected with, or arising out of proceedings for partition not being a question as to title in any of the property of which partition is sought.” 12. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: “9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred .- The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Explanation [I].-A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies. Explanation (II) .-For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place.” 13. Record of the case reveals that despite a specific objection raised by defendant No.1 as to lack of jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit in view of express bar contained in section 171 of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, neither any specific issue was framed by learned trial Court nor any finding was recorded. 14. In the first appeal filed by the defendant, a specific ground was raised as under: “13. That again the Ld. Court below has erred in deciding issues No. 4, 8 and 9 together and the issues have been decided against the defendants on flimsy grounds. As submitted in the light of the provisions of Section 171 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act, the suit being not competent and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, where the partition has been effected by a competent revenue officer the suit under no circumstance is maintainable, therefore, the findings on issue No 4, 8 and 9 are perverse, arbitrary and illegal, therefore, the same are liable to be quashed and the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set-aside for this reason.” 15. In the judgment passed by learned first appellate court again there remained a clear omission to deal with the above ground. 16. In this backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that the issue of jurisdiction being fundamental, should have been specifically framed by learned trial Court and specific finding on such issue was required to be returned. In the judgment passed by learned first appellate court again there remained a clear omission to deal with the above ground. 16. In this backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that the issue of jurisdiction being fundamental, should have been specifically framed by learned trial Court and specific finding on such issue was required to be returned. Similarly, despite a specific ground of appeal having been raised by defendant No.1 in first appeal, the first appellant Court did not decide the same. Thus, the case of defendant No.1 has been seriously prejudiced as a decree has concurrently been passed against him by both the Courts without deciding on the fundamental issue of jurisdiction of the Court. In such a situation, the judgment and decree passed by both the courts are vitiated. Substantial question of law framed at serial No.4 above, is answered in affirmative. 17. In view of, what has been held above, there is no need to render findings on other substantial questions of law. 18. Learned Senior Counsel for plaintiff contended that it will suffice in case this court frames a specific issue relating to jurisdiction of the court and calls for findings from learned trial court to that extent only. 19. The contention as noticed above cannot be sustained for the reason that the judgment and decree passed by both the courts are vitiated for non-consideration of a fundamental issue and once such issue is framed and decided by learned trial court, the aggrieved party will have a right to file first appeal under section 96 of the Code, which right cannot be curtailed. 20. In result, the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 0000060/2013 by learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar and judgment and decree dated 30.09.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kinnaur at Reckong Peo in Civil Suit No.24-1 of 2006, are set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court with direction to frame a specific issue on the basis of objection as to jurisdiction of Civil Court raised by defendant No.1 in view of the provisions of Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act and to decide the suit afresh. Needless to say that the parties shall be afforded due opportunity to lead evidence on the issue so framed before deciding the suit. 21. Needless to say that the parties shall be afforded due opportunity to lead evidence on the issue so framed before deciding the suit. 21. The appeal is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 22. Records of the Courts below be sent back.