Mandatory compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code and the need for the First Appellate Court to independently assess the evidence and provide reasons for its decision on each point independently.

ORDER :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Deesa in Regular Civil Appeal No.21 of 2015 whereby the learned Additional District Judge has confirmed the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge in Regular Civil Suit No.203 of 2015, the appellants have preferred the present second appeal.

2. Short facts of the present case are that the original plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No.203 of 2015 before the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Deesa at Sabarkantha for cancellation of the alleged sale deed of the suit land and for taking possession of the suit land. The said suit came to be dismissed by the Trial Court on 18.08.2015. Against the said judgment and decree, the original plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.21 of 2015, which came to be dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 29.02.2020. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the First Appellate Court has not properly determined the substantial questions of law. He has submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Considering the facts of the case and materials place on record, it appears that the First Appellate Court has not framed any substantial questions of law. I have also perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below. In my opinion, under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter be referred to as “the Code”), the First Appellate Court is bound to frame points for consideration, however, the same is not done. The provisions of Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that how the First Appellate Court has to deal with the appeal under Section 96 of the Code and the procedure is to be followed as per Order 41 of the Code.

6. It is worthwhile to refer to the decision in case of Ajitsinh Babubhai Jadav Vs. Wadhwan Mahajan Panjarapol reported in 2013 LawSuit(Guj) 251, the Court has held as under:

“6. Now considering the points, which are formulated by the lower Appellate Court, I am of the opinion that, the lower Appellate Court has committed error in not properly formulating the points for determination. The lower Appellate Court ought to have framed points for determination in accordance with Order 41 Rules 11, 14, 15 and 31 of the Code as well as Para No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual and ought to have given reasons for its decision on each point independently. The Apex Court in the case of H.Siddiqui (dead) by LRs. (supra) in the context of Order-41 Rule-31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has observed in paras 21 and 22 as under:

“21. The said provisions provided guidelines for the appellate Court as to how the Court has to proceed and decide the case. The provisions should be read in such a way as to require that the various particulars mentioned therein should be taken into consideration. Thus, it must be evident from the judgment of the appellate Court that the Court has properly appreciated the facts/evidence, applied its mind and decided case considering the material on record. It would amount to substantial compliance of the said provisions if the appellate Court's judgment is based on the independent assessment of the relevant evidence on all important aspect of the matter and the findings of the appellate Court are well founded and quite convincing. It is mandatory for the appellate Court to independently asses the evidence of the parties and consider the relevant points which arise for adjudication and the bearing of the evidence on those points. Being the final Court of fact, the first appellate court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial Co