1. Civil suit for partition — Trial Court dismissal — First Appellate Court decree — Second appeal summarily dismissed by High Court under Order 41 Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1218
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Kanailal & Ors. – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Ram Chandra Singh & Ors. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL No.4165 OF 2008
Decided On : 23-08-2017
Important Points
Appellate Courts must provide reasoned judgments under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. For second appeals, the High Court must identify and formulate substantial questions of law under Section 100. Summary dismissals lacking reasons or such formulation are legally unsustainable and violate principles of natural justice.
Subject
Civil Law - Appellate Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - Section 100, Order 41, Rule 31 - Hearing of Second appeal - Held, It is clear from mere reading of Rule 31(a) to (d) that it makes it legally obligatory upon Appellate Court (both-first and second Appellate Court) as to what should judgment of Appellate Court contain. Sub-clause (a) provides that judgment must formulate and state points arising in case for determination. Sub-clause (b) provides that Court must give decision on such points and sub-clause (c) provides that judgment shall state reasons for decision. So far as sub-clause (d) is concerned, it applies in those cases where Appellate Court has reversed decree. In such case, Court has to specify relief to which appellant has become entitled to as result of decree having been reversed in appeal at his instance. While deciding second appeal which lies only to High Court, Court has to further ensure compliance of requirements of Section 100 of Code in addition to requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of Code set out above. In other words, High Court while hearing second appeal at time of its admission has to first find out whether second appeal involves any substantial question(s) of law and if Court finds that appeal does involve any substantial question(s) of law then such question(s) is/are required to be formulated. Appeal can be then heard finally only on such formulated question(s). If however, Court, at time of hearing appeal on question of admission, comes to conclusion that appeal does not involve any such question within meaning of Section 100 of Code, then it has to pass reasoned order keeping in view requirements of Order 41, Rule 31 set out above. Indeed, this being mandatory requirements of law, its non-compliance by Appellate Court render their judgment bad in law.
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 [C.A. No. 5/1908] - Section 100, Order 41, Rule 31 - Second appeal - Contents, date and signature of judgment - High Court while deciding appeal neither setting out facts nor submissions urged by parties in support of their appeal - No reasoning given by Court as to why submissions of appellants have no merit and does not involve any substantial question of law - High Court dismissing appeal without satisfying requirements of Section 100 or Order 41, Rule 31, unsustainable - Matter remanded back to High Court for hearing of appeal afresh.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the summary dismissal of a second appeal by the High Court for failure to provide reasons or formulate substantial questions of law. (Para 6 , 9 )
3. The High Court failed to record reasons or formulate substantial questions of law, violating mandatory requirements of Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Appellate courts must provide reasoned judgments stating points for determination and reasons; summary dismissals of second appeals must satisfy the requirements of Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 16 )
5. Appeal allowed — Impugned order set aside — Case remanded to High Court for fresh hearing of the second appeal in accordance with law. (Para 8 , 18 )
6. What are the mandatory contents of an Appellate Court's judgment under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
The judgment must be in writing and state the points for determination, the decision on those points, and the reasons for the decision. If the decree is reversed or varied, the judgment must also specify the relief to which the appellant is entitled. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
7. What is the procedure for the High Court when deciding the admission of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
The Court must determine if the appeal involves a substantial question of law. If it does, such questions must be formulated, and the appeal is heard on those questions. If the Court concludes no such question exists, it must pass a reasoned order. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
8. Why is the recording of reasons essential in judicial and quasi-judicial orders?
Reasons introduce clarity, substitute subjectivity with objectivity, and serve as the live link between the decision-maker's mind and the conclusion. They are an indispensable part of a sound judicial system and a requirement of natural justice, allowing the affected party to understand the decision. (Para 10 )
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This appeal is filed by the defendants against the final judgment and order dated 09.09.1999 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in S.A.T. No. 1082 of 1999 (re-numbered as S.A. No.740 of 1999) whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was summarily dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”).
2) Few relevant facts need mention in brief infra.
3) The appellants herein are the defendants whereas the respondents are the plaintiffs in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
4) The respondents filed the civil suit being Title Suit No. 37 of 1991 before the Sub Divisional Court of the Munsif, Jhargram, District Midnapore against the appellants inter alia seeking partition in relation to the suit properties. The appellants filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. Parties went to trial on the issues framed for its determination.
5) By judgment/decree dated 26.06.1992, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. The respondents, felt aggrieved, filed first appeal being Title Appeal No. 240 of 1992 before the Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Midnapore. By judgment/decree dated 28.01.1999, the first Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, 6th Court) allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decreed the plaintiffs’ suit.
6) The appellants (defendants), felt aggrieved, filed second appeal being S.A.T. No.1082 of 1999 (re-numbered as S.A. No. 740 of 1999) before the High Court. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by special leave before this Court by the defendants.
7) The impugned order reads as under :
“This appeal is summarily dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
There will be no order as to costs.”
8) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal and while setting aside of the impugned order, remand the case to the High Court for deciding the second appeal afresh after framing proper substantial questions of law, if found to arise in the case.
9) Mere perusal of the impugned order quoted supra would go to show that the High Court while deciding the appeal neither set out the facts nor the submissions urged by the appellants in support of their appeal and nor given any reason as to why the submissions urged by the appellants have no merit and why the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under Section 100 of the Code. (See-2011 (6) SCC 455 -Jayanmti De & Anr. vs. Abani Kanta Barat and Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 455 and Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs., (2001) 3 SCC 179).
10) This Court has consistently emphasized the need for assigning reasons in support of its conclusion and while doing so must deal with all the issues raised by the parties to the lis. Indeed, this Court has made the following very pertinent observations on this issue in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jai Prakash Singh & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 712 which read as under:
“Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court’s judgment not sustainable. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.’ Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ‘inscrutable face of the sphinx’, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review
