Case Note & Summary
The present revision application arises from a civil suit for eviction. The respondents (plaintiffs) filed RCS No. 167 of 2008 seeking vacant possession of suit premises from the applicant (defendant). The trial court dismissed the suit on 30 January 2014. The respondents appealed to the District Court, Nashik, in RCA No. 91 of 2014. The appellate court, by judgment dated 27 June 2018, set aside the trial court's decree and decreed the suit, directing the applicant to deliver possession. Aggrieved, the applicant filed this civil revision application under Section 115 CPC. The High Court examined the appellate judgment and found that the appellate court had not framed any points for determination as required by Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. The appellate court merely reproduced the trial court's findings and then proceeded to remand the matter for fresh consideration without setting aside those findings. The High Court held that the appellate judgment was illegal and unsustainable. It set aside the appellate decree and remanded the matter to the appellate court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, directing the appellate court to frame points for determination, decide each point with reasons, and comply with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appellate Judgment - Order 41 Rule 31 CPC - Points for Determination - The appellate court is duty-bound to frame points for determination arising from the appeal and to decide each point with reasons. Failure to do so renders the appellate judgment illegal and liable to be set aside. (Paras 7-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Remand - Order 41 Rule 23 CPC - Setting Aside Findings - An appellate court cannot remand the matter to the trial court without first setting aside the findings of the trial court. Remand without such setting aside is improper and unsustainable. (Para 11)
C) Civil Procedure - Revision - Section 115 CPC - Maintainability - A revision application under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against an appellate decree if the appellate court has exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, such as by failing to comply with mandatory procedural requirements. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court's judgment and decree are sustainable when it failed to frame points for determination as required under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the appellate court could remand the matter without setting aside the trial court's findings.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the appellate judgment and decree dated 27 June 2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Nashik in RCA No. 91 of 2014, and remanded the matter to the appellate court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, directing compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.
Law Points
- Order 41 Rule 31 CPC
- Appellate judgment must frame points for determination
- Appellate judgment must provide reasons
- Remand without setting aside findings is improper
- Section 115 CPC revision against appellate decree maintainable
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (09) 84
Civil Revision Application No. 553 of 2019
Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate, with Sandeep D. Shinde and S Relekar, for the Applicant. Mr. Vikram A. Sathaye, i/b Yogita Deshmukh, for Respondent.
Viresh Gangadhar Talajia and Heena Paresh Talajia
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application against appellate decree in an eviction suit.
Remedy Sought
The applicant (defendant) sought to set aside the appellate judgment and decree directing him to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises.
Filing Reason
The appellate court failed to frame points for determination as required under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and remanded the matter without setting aside the trial court's findings.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit (RCS No. 167 of 2008) on 30 January 2014. Appellate court (RCA No. 91 of 2014) set aside the trial court's decree and decreed the suit on 27 June 2018.
Issues
Whether the appellate judgment is sustainable when it fails to frame points for determination under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.
Whether the appellate court could remand the matter without setting aside the trial court's findings.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the appellate court did not frame any points for determination and merely reproduced the trial court's findings, rendering the judgment illegal.
The respondents supported the appellate judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
An appellate judgment that does not frame points for determination as mandated by Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and fails to provide independent reasoning is illegal and liable to be set aside. Remand without setting aside the trial court's findings is improper.
Judgment Excerpts
This Revision Application is directed against a judgment and order dated 27th June 2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Nashik in RCA No. 91 of 2014, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Respondents-Plaintiffs, against a judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in RCS No. 167 of 2008 dated 30th January 2014 was set aside and the said Suit came to be decreed thereby directing the Applicant to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the premises situated at City Survey No. 5900 (the Suit premises).
The appellate court did not frame any points for determination as required under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellate court merely reproduced the trial court's findings and then proceeded to remand the matter for fresh consideration without setting aside those findings.
Procedural History
The respondents filed RCS No. 167 of 2008 for eviction. The trial court dismissed the suit on 30 January 2014. The respondents appealed to the District Court, Nashik, in RCA No. 91 of 2014. The appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit on 27 June 2018. The applicant filed Civil Revision Application No. 553 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court, which was allowed on 3 September 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115, Order 41 Rule 31, Order 41 Rule 23
