Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC is essential for valid appellate judgments; non-compliance renders decisions unsustainable.

ORDER :

1. A challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dated 07.06.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short, “the Board”) by which the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2018 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short “the RAA’) has been quashed and set-aside and the matter has been remanded back to the RAA to decide the first appeal strictly in compliance with the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a suit for declaration and partition was filed by the respondents against the petitioners before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Buhana (for short “the SDO”) and the same was decreed vide judgment dated 20.06.2016 against which a first appeal under Section 223 of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT , 1955 (for short, “the Act of 1955”) was filed by the petitioners, after considering the entire facts, material, evidence and documents available on record, the RAA passed a reasoned and cogent judgment allowing the appeal.

3. Counsel submits that a second appeal, against the order dated 10.02.2018, was preferred by the respondents, before the Board and the same was partly allowed and the judgment passed by the RAA has been quashed and set-aside not only on merits, but also on a technical count that at the time of passing of the judgment, the RAA has not formulated points for determination and has not followed the provisions provided under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. Learned counsel submits that each and every aspect of the matter was taken into account by the RAA and only thereafter, the judgment was passed by the RAA, which does not call for any interference even then, the Board has unnecessarily remanded the matter to the RAA for its fresh adjudication, after following the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC.

4. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. Amalorpavam and Ors. Vs. R.C. Diocese of Madurai and Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 224 decided on 06.03.2006.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that while deciding the appeal, the RAA was supposed to comply with the mandatory provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC and without formulating points for determination and without formulating the issues, the judgment in question was straightaway passed by the RAA. Learned counsel submits that this fact was noticed and well-appreciated by the Board, while entertaining the second appeal submitted by the respondents and the matter has been rightly remanded to the RAA for its fresh adjudication, after making compliance of the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

6. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Karuppuraj Vs. M. Ganesan (Civil Appeal No. 6014-6015/2021) decided on 04.10.2021 and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ramsahay & Ors. Vs. Smt. Shyopyari Devi & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4968/2023) decided on 06.12.2023.

7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

8. Perusal of the record indicates that a suit for declaration and partition was filed by the respondents against the petitioners before the Court of SDO and the same was decreed vide judgment dated 20.06.2016, against