Non-Compliance Of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC By Appellate Court Renders A Judgment Bad In Law: Rajasthan High Court
Recently, while affirming the decision of the second appellate authority to remand the matter back to the first appellate authority for deciding the matter afresh, the Rajasthan High Court has underscored that the Appellate Court is supposed to pass a reasoned judgment as per Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.For context, Order 41 Rule 31 CPC mandates that a judgment of the appellate court should state...
Recently, while affirming the decision of the second appellate authority to remand the matter back to the first appellate authority for deciding the matter afresh, the Rajasthan High Court has underscored that the Appellate Court is supposed to pass a reasoned judgment as per Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.
For context, Order 41 Rule 31 CPC mandates that a judgment of the appellate court should state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision.
The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand reminded that the first appellate court, which is the Revenue Appellate Tribunal (RAA) in this case, is considered the last authority to revisit the facts.
Taking into account the various stages of proceedings that emanate from a civil suit, the first appellate proceeding is a continuation of the suit, the court clarified.
“…as such it is expected that the First Appellate Court should give a categorical finding on the relevant issues and grant such relief to the concerned in accordance with law. While deciding an appeal, the First Appellate Court is required to adhere the mandate contained under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC”, the bench sitting at Jaipur laid down in clear terms.
The court concurred with the second appellate authority, i.e., the Board of Revenue's finding that RAA has neither formulated any points of determination as envisaged by Order 41 Rule 31 CPC nor given a reasoned order on any of those points.
“The judgment passed by RAA does not satisfy the requirement of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, hence it is legally unsustainable. Hence, the Board of Revenue has rightly directed the RAA, to decide the issues, on the basis of the evidence available on the record”, the court further held while reiterating that the Board of Revenue has rightfully remanded the matter back to RAA.
The judge added that RAA had contravened the mandatory procedure while passing the judgment. The apex court judgments in G. Saraswathi v. Rathinammal (2018) and Malluru Mallappa (D) Thr. LRS. v. Kuruvathappa and Ors. (2020) were also briefly referred to establish that RAA must decide the issues based on evidence available on record.
For context, in G. Saraswathi, the apex court held that courts cannot dispose of appeals by passing a cryptic and unreasoned order. Similarly, in Malluru Mallappa, it was held that even when the first appellate court affirms a judgment of the trial court, it is mandatory to comply with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC while passing the order.
RAA, Jaipur passed an order dated 28.10.2014 in the appeal arising from a suit filed before the Court of Assistant Collector, Jaipur City I. The suit was originally filed for permanent injunction and declaration of Khatedari rights which was ultimately decided in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents after framing nine issues. An appeal was preferred before RAA under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. As per the Board of Revenue in the Second Appeal, RAA allowed Appeal without formulating points for consideration.
“…Ordinarily, the appellate jurisdiction involves re-hearing on law as well as on fact and is invoked by the aggrieved person. The first appeal is a valuable right of the appellant and therein all questions of fact and law, decided by the trial court, are open for re-consideration. Therefore, the first appellate court is required to address itself on all the issues and decide the case by giving cogent reasons…”, the court observed in the order.
The single-judge bench also opined that the court of first appeal should record its findings only after dealing with all questions of law as well as facts. This should be done after analysing all the documentary and oral evidence, the court further clarified. Findings on all the issues and contentions raised must be supported by reasons, the court added.
Case Title: Ramsahay Through Legal Heirs v. Smt. Shyopyari Devi & Ors.
Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4968/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj)