Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the original defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Beed, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1994, which confirmed the decree of the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No. 87 of 1986. The suit was filed by the original plaintiff, Hamida Begum, seeking possession of the suit property and mesne profits. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decision. The appellants (defendants) challenged the concurrent findings in the second appeal before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the judgment of the first appellate court and found that it did not comply with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The first appellate court failed to frame points for determination and did not provide proper reasoning for its decision. The High Court held that this non-compliance rendered the judgment illegal and unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, and remanded the matter back to the first appellate court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The High Court directed the first appellate court to decide the appeal afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties, without being influenced by any observations made in the judgment. The court also directed the parties to appear before the first appellate court on a specified date.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Order 41 Rule 31 CPC - Duty of First Appellate Court - The first appellate court must frame points for determination and give reasons for its decision. Failure to do so renders the judgment illegal and unsustainable. The High Court in second appeal can set aside such judgment and remand the matter for fresh disposal. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - Interference with Concurrent Findings - The High Court can interfere with concurrent findings if the first appellate court's judgment is not in compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, as it amounts to a substantial question of law. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first appellate court's judgment is sustainable when it fails to comply with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by not framing points for determination and not providing proper reasoning, and whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings in a second appeal when such non-compliance is established.
Final Decision
The second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Beed, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1994 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the first appellate court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The parties are directed to appear before the first appellate court on 11th December 2023.
Law Points
- Order 41 Rule 31 CPC
- Substantial question of law
- Second appeal
- Concurrent findings
- Reversal by High Court
- Duty of first appellate court
- Proper reasoning
- Judgment writing
