Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Ramsahay & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Smt. Shyopyari Devi & Ors. - Respondents
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4968/2023
Decided On : 06-12-2023
CPC - Appeal Procedure - Order 41 Rule 31 - The court emphasized the necessity for appellate courts to formulate points for determination, provide decisions, and state reasons, reinforcing the mandatory nature of these requirements in ensuring fair judicial processes.
Fact of the Case:
The petition arises from a judgment by the Board of Revenue, which quashed a prior ruling by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal (RAA) for failing to follow procedural requirements under the CPC, specifically regarding the formulation of issues and points for determination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the RAA did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, which necessitates a reasoned judgment addressing all issues, leading to the Board's decision to remand the case for proper adjudication.
Issues: Whether the First Appellate Court must decide the appeal in accordance with the procedure outlined in Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC renders the appellate judgment unsustainable, necessitating remand for proper consideration of all issues.
Result: The petition is dismissed, upholding the Board's remand order.
ORDER
1. This petition arises from the judgment dated 15.12.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short 'the Board') by which the appeal filed by the respondents has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2014 passed by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the RAA') has been quashed and set aside and the matter has been remanded back to decide the same afresh while recording finding on every each issues involved in the matter.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2014, the RAA has recorded a cogent finding on issue Nos.1 to 3. Counsel submits that the RAA has passed the judgment dated 28.10.2014, after appreciating the evidence available on the record and the same has been quashed by the Board erroneously, on the technical count that RAA has not decided the appeal by formulating the issues and point wise consideration in terms of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and there was no occasion or reason available with the Board to remand the matter back to the RAA for rewriting of the judgment. Counsel submits that the entire evidence and material was available with the Board and the Board itself could have decided the matter on its merits, instead of remanding it back to the RAA for re-writing of the judgment. Counsel submits that the remand order would unnecessarily prolong the decision of the litigation. Counsel submits that while going beyond the parameters of remand, which are contained under Order 41 Rule 23, 23A, 24 and 25 CPC, the order impugned has been passed, which is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is contrary to the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of:
2. Shivkumar and Others vs. Sharanabasappa and Others reported in (2021) 11 SCC 277.
3. Bachan Devi and Another vs. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur and Another, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 372.
4. Niranjan Lal vs. UIT, Alwar and Others reported in 2007 (1) RLW 350.
3. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, interference of this Court is warranted and the order impugned passed by the Board is liable to be quashed and set aside. Counsel submits that while setting aside the order passed by the Board, a direction may be issued to the Board to decide the appeal on its merits and on the basis of the material available.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments, raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that while deciding the appeal, the RAA has not formulated the points of determination in terms of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. Counsel further submits that no finding was recorded by the RAA, after framing the issues and determining the points for consideration and the judgment has been passed in a cursory manner. Counsel submits that the Board has not committed any error in setting aside the impugned judgment dated 28.10.2014 passed by the RAA. Counsel submits that a logical order has been passed by the Board remanding the matter back to the RAA to decide it afresh, on the basis of the evidence available on record, on all the issues framed in the matter. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of:
2. Shasidhar vs. Ashwini Uma Mathad reported in (2015) AIR (SCW) 777.
3. Malluru Mallappa (D) Thr. LRS. vs. Kuruvathappa and Ors. reported in (2020) AIR (SC) 925.
5. Counsel submits that the order passed by the Board is just and proper which needs no interference of this Court.
6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.
7. The issue involved in this petition is 'Whether it is necessary for the First Appellate Co
The appellate court must adhere to Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, ensuring all points of determination are addressed with reasoned judgments.
Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC is essential for valid appellate judgments; non-compliance renders decisions unsustainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement for the First Appellate Court to frame specific points for determination and independently assess the evidence, as per Or....
The First Appellate Court must comply with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, independently assess the evidence, and give reasons for its decision on each point independe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory compliance of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. by the First Appellate Court while deciding the appeal, and the requirement for the Appellat....
The First Appellate Court is obligated to comply with the mandatory requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. and decide the appeal in accordance with law on merits after framing points for determin....
The First Appellate Court is required to comply with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. and decide the appeal in accordance with law on merits after framing points for determination as envi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory compliance of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C., the requirement for the appellate court to independently assess the evidence, and the need ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement for the First Appellate Court to comply with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, including in....
Mandatory compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of the C.P.C is required for the First Appellate Court while deciding the First Appeal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
