The First Appellate Court must frame points for determination and provide reasoned judgments, as mandated by Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Mr. O.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Suresh Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Anupam Kulshreshtra for private respondent for considerable time.

2. Both the counsels have agreed to the extent that the judgement passed by the First Appellate Court was not in terms of Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, since points of determination were not framed, therefore, there was no decision on it. The second appeal filed by the contesting respondents was allowed and, as such, it was an order of reversal of 2 concurrent orders.

3. In the second appeal, questions of law were framed but the Board of Revenue failed to consider an important aspect that the First Appellate Court has not followed the contours of Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and, therefore, the proper order ought to be to remand the case to First Appellate Court. In this regard the court takes note of judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Laliteshwar Prasad Singh and Others Vs. S.P. Srivastava (Dead) Through Legal Representatives, (2017) 2 SCC 415 and K. Karuppuraj Vs. M. Ganeshan, (2021) 10 SCC 777 wherein it has been held:-

4. Relevant paragraphs of Laliteshwar Prasad Singh(Supra) are mentioned hereinafter:-

"12. As per Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, the judgment of the first appellate court must explicitly set out the points for determination, record its reasons thereon and to give its reasonings based on evidence. Order 41 Rule 31 CPC reads as under:

“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 propounded be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein.”

It is well settled that the first appellate court shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for decision. However, it is equally well settled that mere omission to frame point/points for determination does not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate court provided that the first appellate court records its reasons based on evidence adduced by both the parties.

13. An appellate court is the final court of facts. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect the court's application of mind and record its findings supported by reasons. The law relating to powers and duties of the first appellate court is well fortified by the legal provisions and judicial pronouncements. Considering the nature and scope of duty of the first appellate court, in Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar [Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar, (2015) 1 SCC 391 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 521] , it was held as under : (SCC pp. 394-96, paras 12-15)

“12. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179] , this Court held as under : (SCC pp. 188-89, para 15)

‘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 appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of 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.’

The above view has been followed by a three-Judge Bench decision of th