The First Appellate Court's failure to comply with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC, which require the court to frame specific points for determination and provide reasoned discussion on each point independently, led to a jurisdictional error and necessitated the remand of the case.

ORDER :

1. ADMIT. Ms.Megha Chitalia, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives the service of notice of admission of the appeal for and on behalf of the respondents State.

2. Present Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants – original appellants/plaintiffs against the judgement and decree dated 15/04/2017 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal No.42 of 2017, by which the learned first appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgement and decree dated 15/04/2017 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Suit No.255 of 2012, by which the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit.

3. The appellate Court framed the following Issues :-

“(1) Whether the appellants establish that the judgement delivered by the Learned Trial Court is illegal, unjust and against the settled position of law and require interference by this Court?

(2) What Order?”

3. Heard Mr.Digant Kakkad, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms.Megha Chitalia, learned advocate for the respondents – State.

4. Mr.Kakkad, learned advocate for the appellants has vehemently submitted that the learned first appellate court has not given its own findings more particularly on the issue of jurisdiction.

5. Ms.Megha Chitalia, learned advocate for the respondents State has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned appellate court is just and proper and do not call for interference.

6. Considering the above fact the First Appellate Court has to apply its mind independently and frame the issues appropriately and independently. The provisions of Order 41 of C.P.C. provides that how the 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 C.P.C. 11. In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of K. Karuppuraj vs M. Ganesan reported in 2021 (10) SCC 777, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while deciding the First Appeal, compliance of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. is mandatory.

7. In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of K. Karuppuraj (supra) and Judgments of this Court, which are referred hereinafter, time and again reiterated by this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court that how and in which manner the First Appellate Court has to decide the Appeal under Section 96 of the Code.

8. In the decision in case of Budhabhai Bhikhabhai Parmar and others vs. Shantaben WD/o Bhalabhai Becharbhai reported in 2013 (4) GLR 3595, the Court has held as under:

[4.0] Having heard Shri Adeshra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri Bukhari, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court it appears to the Court that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court cannot be sustained. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court it appears that the learned Appellate Court has disposed of the Appeal preferred under Order 41 of the CPC read with Section 96 in a most casual and perfunctory manner. Apart from the fact that the learned Appellate Court has not framed the points for determination as required under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC, it appears that even the learned Appellate Court has not exercised the powers vested in it as a first Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court has neither re-appreciated the entire evidence on record nor has given any specific findings on the issues which were even raised before the learned trial Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Nagesh and Anr. vs. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy reported in (2010)13 SCC 530, in para 4 has observed and held as under:

“4. The appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse/affirm the findings of the trial Court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole ca