JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that although both the courts have dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, but the trial court took a view that the certified copy of Exhibit 1 and 1/a was suspicious document as the original was never produced, but the learned appellate court has given a different reason for dismissal of the appeal by holding that the surrender deed was never acted upon. The learned counsel submits that though both the courts have recorded finding that the defendants were in possession of the suit property, but the same would not invalidate the Exhibit 1 and 1/a and extinguish the title of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11 are concerned, the learned trial court had dealt it in paragraph 12 in one short paragraph and has simply observed that in view of specific evidence of PWs and DWs the plaintiffs had no valid cause to bring the suit and the suit was barred by limitation and has held that suit in the present form was not maintainable and so far as the appellate court is concerned, the appellate court did not frame any issue on the point of limitation and has dismissed the appeal. He has submitted that the aforesaid point of limitation/cause of action certainly fell for consideration and was also required to be decided by the appellate court which has not been done in the present case and therefore the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC has not been followed under the facts and circumstances of this court by the appellate court. The learned counsel has submitted that the finding of the learned appellate court that the registered deed of surrender and settlement was not acted upon is not based on any material on record. 3. Considering the submissions, this second appeal is admitted to be heard on following substantial question of law: - (a) Whether the judgment of confirmation by the learned first appellate court is fit to be interfered for having not followed the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 in letter and spirit. 3. Considering the submissions, this second appeal is admitted to be heard on following substantial question of law: - (a) Whether the judgment of confirmation by the learned first appellate court is fit to be interfered for having not followed the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 in letter and spirit. (b) Whether the rent receipt(s) which has been relied upon by both the courts could be said to be the conclusive proof on the point of title and possession of the defendants. (c) Whether the finding of the first appellate court that the registered deed was not acted upon is based on any material on record. 4. Issue notice to the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 through ordinary process as well as registered cover with A/D for which requisites be filed by the appellants by 13.01.2025. 5. Office is directed to call for the records from the concerned court. 6. Post this case on 20.03.2025. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX’.