Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 123
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
Rajeev Goswami @ Rajib Goswami, S/o - Late Dugdha Nath Goswami – Petitioner
Versus
On The Death Of Radhika Prasad Khound, His Legal Heirs Smt. Sudesna Khound And Anr. – Respondents
CRP/181 of 2019
Decided On : 05-02-2026
For the Petitioner:Mr. N.C. Das, Sr. Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. P.J. Saikia, Sr. Advocate
Substantial compliance with procedural norms is sufficient for validating appellate court judgments, provided the court adequately considers the issues at hand.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Revision petition against judgment and decree of District Judge, challenging the dismissal of a suit for specific performance on grounds of non-compliance with procedural provisions - It was held that substantial compliance with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC suffices if the appellate court records detailed reasons and considers all relevant issues. (Paras 14-20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a tenant, sought specific performance of a land sale agreement with the respondent, who later refused to sell, leading to a suit which was dismissed by the trial court. The dismissal was upheld on appeal. (Paras 3-11)
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the revision petition as the trial court's findings were neither perverse nor indicative of non-application of mind. (Paras 20-21)
Issues: The main issues were the implications of non-compliance with procedural norms and whether the appellate court's judgment was vitiated by such failure. (Paras 14-18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the appellate court's failure to frame specific points does not invalidate its judgment if all matters of determination were duly considered and substantial compliance is evident. (Para 16)
Result: The revision petition was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the tenancy and contract (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. argument on appeal's legal compliance (Para 14 , 17) |
| 3. court's summarizing of prior issues and reasoning (Para 15 , 16) |
| 4. scope of high court’s revisional jurisdiction (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. conclusion on merits of revision petition (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
1. Heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned senior counsel representing the respondents.
2. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Appeal No.06/2017.
3. The petitioner Rajeev Goswami (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner “only) is a tenant under the respondents in respect of a shop house measuring about 30’ X 52’ situated on a plot of land under Dag No.60, P.P. No.10 of Chiring Gaon Ward, Dibrugarh Town. The monthly rent was Rs. 500/-.
4. In the May, 1998, the petitioner and late Radhika Prasad Khound had entered into an agreement for sale of the plot of land measuring 30’ X 52’ = 1560 Sq.ft. covered by Dag No.60 and P.P. No.10 of Chiring Gaon Ward, Dibrugarh Town. The price of the land was agreed at Rs. 1,50,000/-.
5. It is alleged by the petitioner that before execution of the sale deed by late Radhika Prasad Khound, the latter had taken different sums of money from the former on different occasions and in this way, late Radhika Prasad Khound had taken an amount of Rs. 54,800/-.
6. On 23.12.2005, late Radhika Prasad Khound told the petitioner that he would not sell the land.
7. Narrating the aforesaid facts, the petitioner filed the suit before the court below praying for specific performance of the contract.
8. Late Radhika Prasad Khound and his wife Ira Khound contested the suit by filing a written statement and a counter claim.
9. They denied all the averments made by the petitioner in the plaint. Rather they claimed that the petitioner was a defaulter in payment of rent and therefore, he should be evicted from the suit premise.
10. The learned trial court dismissed the suit of the petitioner and decreed the counter claim of the respondents. The petitioner filed an appeal before the district Judge, Dibrugarh. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal.
11. Therefore, the petitioner filed the second appeal being RSA No.35/2020 before this Court challenging dismissal of his suit only. No second appeal was filed against the first appellate court judgment in respect of the decree passed in the counter claim because under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1971 no second appeal lies against a first appellate court judgment.
12. This Court dismissed the second appeal of the petitioner.
13. Against the first appellate court judgment confirming the decree passed in the counter claim, this revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
14. Mr. Das has confined his argument on the point that the judgment passed by the learned District judge in Title Appeal No.06/2017 is bad in law in the light of non-compliance of the provisions of law as laid down in Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
16. The point raised by Mr. Das was also raised in RSA No.35/2020 and the same has already been answered by this Court in that second appeal. While doing so, this court relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta v. Ahamedabad Municipal Corporation, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 849. Paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 of the said judgment are quoted as under:
“29. However, in Laliteshwar Prasad Singh v. S.P. Srivastava (Dead) thru. Lrs.7, this Court, while affirming the aforestated prin
