The judgment emphasizes the mandatory nature of complying with the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the requirement for the appellate court to draw up points for determination and answer all the issues.

Heard Mr. N. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel representing the respondents.

2. This is a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) where the judgment dated 07.05.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, North Lakhimpur in Money Appeal No.01/2008, is under challenge.

3. The appellant was doing the business of production and supply of Muga Cocoons. He had taken a house on rent at Ghilamara, in the district of North Lakhimpur. He was paying the house rent at the rate of Rs.50/-per month. Apart from staying in the house, he used that house as a godown to store Muga Cocoons. He purchased a Fire Insurance Policy for the house.

4. On 16.01.2001, while the appellant was at Sualkuchi in the district of Kamrup, the rented house at Ghilamara was gutted in fire. Upon getting the information, the appellant went to Ghilamara and finally staked the claim before the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the appellant.

5. The appellant approached the Ombudsman of the Insurance Company who awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-to him as ex gratia compensation. The Insurance Company was not paying the appellant the said compensation. Therefore, the appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition. On the basis of an order of this Court, the Insurance Company paid the appellant the sum of Rs.25,000/-.

6. The appellant thereafter, approached the Consumers Forum and the said case was dismissed on account of non prosecution.

7. Finally, the appellant filed the present suit praying for recovery of Rs.4,30,912.55 from the Insurance Company.

8. The Insurance Company has admitted everything. The Insurance Company has claimed that it investigated the matter and found several things. The first thing that was discovered was that the appellant had lied while he claimed to be a resident of Ghilamara. According to the Insurance Company, the appellant was residing at Sualkuchi in the district of Kamrup.

9. The Insurance Company further discovered that the rented house which was gutted in fire, was actually a cowshed and it was never used as a godown to store Muga Cocoons.

10. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:

I. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?

II. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?

III. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata?

IV. Whether the godown belonging to the plaintiff was insured by United India Insurance Company Limited?

V. Whether the alleged godown was used for the purpose of storing cocoons at the time of the incident and the said godown contained any stocks (sic)?

VI. Whether the grounds of repudiation of plaintiff’s claim was proper and appropriate?

VII. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get compensation and the reliefs as prayed for?

11. During the trial, the appellant examined three witnesses and the respondent Insurance Company examined one witness. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court decreed the suit of the appellant.

12. The Insurance Company filed the first appeal in the court of the District Judge, Lakhimpur. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment.

13. I have gone through the judgment of the first appellate court.

14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

15. The Supreme court in Malluru Mallappa v. Kuruvathappa, (2020) 4 SCC 313 has held as under—

“16. In [Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar,

(2015) 1 SCC 391

: (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 521] this Court has reiterated the principles to be borne in mind while disposing of a first appeal, as under : (SCC p. 395, para 15)

“15. Again in [B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 808], this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words : (SCC pp. 530-31, paras 34)

‘3. How the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate court/High Court