Bombay High Court Allows Letters Patent Appeal in Partition Suit Due to Non-Compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. Appellate Court's Judgment Set Aside for Failure to Frame Points for Determination and Provide Reasons.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 85
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case arises from a Letters Patent Appeal against a judgment dated 2nd February 1988 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.4 of 1978. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for partition claiming a 1/7th share in the property. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed that decision, ordering a preliminary decree for partition and rendition of accounts. The appellants challenged the appellate judgment on several grounds, but the court found it necessary to address only one ground: non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court observed that the appellate judgment did not frame any points for determination and did not provide reasons for its conclusions. The court held that Order 41 Rule 31 is mandatory and requires the appellate court to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. Since the impugned judgment failed to comply with these requirements, it was illegal and liable to be set aside. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after framing points for determination and giving reasons. The parties were directed to appear before the Single Judge on 17th July 2006.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Appellate Judgment - Order 41 Rule 31 CPC - Mandatory Requirements - The appellate court must frame points for determination and give reasons for its decision. Failure to do so renders the judgment illegal and liable to be set aside. The court held that the learned Single Judge did not frame any points for determination and the judgment lacked reasons, thus violating Order 41 Rule 31 CPC (Paras 5-7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellate court's judgment complied with the mandatory requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and decree dated 2nd February 1988 set aside. First Appeal No.4 of 1978 restored to file. Learned Single Judge to decide afresh after framing points for determination and giving reasons. Parties to appear on 17th July 2006. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is mandatory
  • appellate judgment must frame points for determination and give reasons
  • non-compliance vitiates judgment
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (06) 103

Letters Patent Appeal No. 47 of 1989

2006-06-28

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, S.R. Dongaonkar

Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar for Appellants, Mr. Masood Shareef for Respondent

Khatunbi wd/o Mohammad Sayeed and others

Smt. Aminabai w/o Mohammad Sabir

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Letters Patent Appeal against judgment in First Appeal arising from a partition suit.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the appellate judgment and decree ordering partition and rendition of accounts.

Filing Reason

Appellants challenged the appellate judgment on grounds including non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court dismissed the suit (Special Civil Suit No.226 of 1973) on 29.4.1977; Learned Single Judge in First Appeal No.4 of 1978 set aside trial court judgment and ordered preliminary decree for partition on 2.2.1988.

Issues

Whether the appellate judgment complied with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC by framing points for determination and giving reasons.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the appellate judgment did not frame points for determination and lacked reasons, violating mandatory provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.

Ratio Decidendi

Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is mandatory and requires the appellate court to frame points for determination, give decision thereon, and provide reasons. Non-compliance renders the judgment illegal and liable to be set aside.

Judgment Excerpts

Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory and requires the appellate court to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. The impugned judgment does not disclose any points for determination framed by the learned Single Judge nor does it contain any reasons for the conclusions arrived at.

Procedural History

Respondent/plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.226 of 1973 for partition. Trial Court dismissed suit on 29.4.1977. Respondent appealed in First Appeal No.4 of 1978. Learned Single Judge allowed appeal on 2.2.1988, ordering preliminary decree for partition and rendition of accounts. Appellants filed Letters Patent Appeal No.47 of 1989 against that judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 41 Rule 31
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Bank's Petition Challenging Banking Ombudsman Award for Wrongful Debit Despite Stop Payment Instructions. Bank's Liability Upheld as Limitation Period Under Banking Ombudsman Scheme 1995 is Directory, Not Mandatory.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Unsuccessful Bidder's Challenge to Tender Award in Emergency Medical Services Contract. Court upholds rejection of technical bid for non-compliance with tender conditions regarding timely submission of certificates.