Case Note & Summary
The present Second Appeal arises from a dispute between the appellants (original plaintiffs) and the respondents (original defendants) concerning property rights. The Trial Court had decreed the suit in favor of the appellants. Aggrieved, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2009 before the Lower Appellate Court, which reversed the Trial Court's judgment and dismissed the suit. The appellants then filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC. The substantial question of law framed was whether the Lower Appellate Court complied with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. The High Court observed that the Lower Appellate Court's judgment did not frame points for determination, nor did it discuss the evidence or provide reasons for reversing the Trial Court's findings. The High Court held that such non-compliance vitiates the appellate judgment. Consequently, the Second Appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Lower Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with a direction to decide the appeal within six months. The parties were directed to appear before the Lower Appellate Court on a specified date.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appellate Court Judgment - Order 41 Rule 31 CPC - Compliance - The Lower Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's decree without framing points for determination or providing adequate reasoning as required under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC - Held that the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is not sustainable and is set aside, with the matter remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law (Paras 2, 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Lower Appellate Court complied with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while disposing of Regular Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2009.
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court are set aside. Regular Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2009 is restored to the file of the Lower Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Lower Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal within six months from the date of appearance of the parties. Parties to appear before the Lower Appellate Court on 20th February 2012.
Law Points
- Order 41 Rule 31 CPC
- Duty of Appellate Court
- Points for Determination
- Reversal of Trial Court Judgment
- Remand
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (01) 78
Second Appeal No. 71 of 2011
Shri A. D. Bhobe for appellants, Shri J. P. Mulgaonkar for respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri S. D. Padiyar for respondent no.3
Smt. Suhasini Pandurang Haldankar (since deceased) and others
Smt. Laxmi Vishnu Raul, Shri Narayan Vishnu Raul, and Mapusa Municipal Council
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court reversing the Trial Court's decree.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court and restore the Trial Court's decree.
Filing Reason
The Lower Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's judgment without complying with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the appellants. Lower Appellate Court reversed that decree and dismissed the suit.
Issues
Whether the Lower Appellate Court complied with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC while disposing of Regular Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2009.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the Lower Appellate Court did not frame points for determination and failed to provide adequate reasons for reversing the Trial Court's judgment.
Respondents did not contest the non-compliance but the court considered the matter on merits.
Ratio Decidendi
The Lower Appellate Court must comply with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC by framing points for determination and providing reasons for its decision, especially when reversing the Trial Court's judgment. Non-compliance renders the appellate judgment unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
A short point in controversy in the above appeal is to consider whether the Lower Appellate Court whilst upsetting the judgment passed by the Trial Judge has complied with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of Civil Procedure Code whilst disposing of the Regular Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2009 filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 ?
I have perused the impugned judgment. The Lower Appellate Court has not framed any points for determination nor has discussed the evidence or given any reasons for reversing the findings of the Trial Court.
Procedural History
The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the appellants. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 appealed to the Lower Appellate Court (Regular Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2009), which reversed the decree. The appellants then filed the present Second Appeal No. 71 of 2011 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 41 Rule 31, Section 100
