IMPORTANT POINT
The duty of the appellate court to comply with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC, consider evidence on record, and frame proper points for determination.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal, under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arises from the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.09.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.46 of 2014, whereby the judgment and decree dated 14.05.1998 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Regular Civil Suit No.40 of 1999 allowing the suit in favour of the Government, is reversed.

2. Heard learned advocates.

3. While considering the pleadings of the parties, the following suggested substantial questions of law, which were subsequently added by the appellant by way of draft amendment, which are required to be considered.

(i) Whether the learned appellate court had erred in not considering the Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC ?

(ii) Whether the learned appellate court had erred in not considering the evidence on record, particularly those relied by the trial court ?

4. It transpires that while considering the appeal by the learned appellate Court below, it has framed the following points for its determination in paragraph 7 and findings are recorded qua them accordingly in the impugned judgment, which are reproduced as under :

(i) Whether the trial court has failed to consider that the order of the District Collector, Gandhinagar dated 14.05.1998 is illegal and require to be set aside ? [In the affirmative]

(ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, dated 27.01.2014 in Regular Civil Suit No.40 of 1999 require any interference ? [In the affirmative]

(iii) What order ? [As per final order]

5.1 I have also perused the remaining portion of the judgment impugned whereby the learned appellate Court below has proceeded mainly on the ground that when the case is classified as quasi judicial, the duty to follow completely the principles of interest of justice and on that basis only, the appeal is proceeded further and decided by reversing the judgment of the trial Court passed in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 1999 dated 27.01.2014. In my opinion, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC is required to be complied with, which is as under :

“O.XLI R.31. Contents, date and signature of judgment.—The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state—

(a) the points for determination;

(b) the decision thereon;

(c) the reasons for the decision; and

(d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled, and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein.”

5.2 The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Somakka versus K.P. Basavaraj reported 2022 (0) AIJEL SC 6942 = (2022) 8 SCC 261, more particularly paras 29 and 31 thereof, which are as under :

“29. Further following the above, there have been a series of judgments by this Court;

29.1 In Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 (relevant portion of para 15) is reproduced below:

"15. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the Trial Court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court while reversing a finding of fact the appellate court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it."

29.2 In H.K.N. Swami vs. Irshad Basith, (2005) 10 SCC 243 this Court again reiterated the same principle in paragraph 3 of the judgment:

"3. The first appeal has to be decided on facts as