Order 41 Rule 31 CPC | Omission To Separately Frame Issues Not Fatal If Appellate Court Has Otherwise Dealt With Them : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that an omission to frame points of determination by the first appellate court as per Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) would not prove fatal as long as that first appellate court dealt with all the issues that arise for deliberation in the said appeal.

“Thus, even if the first appellate Court does not separately frame the points for determination arising in the first appeal, it would not prove fatal as long as that Court deals with all the issues that actually arise for deliberation in the said appeal. Substantial compliance with the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC in that regard is sufficient.”, the bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar said.

The judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar stated that if there's substantial compliance with the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC whereby the First Appellate Court in an appeal against the decision of the trial court examines each and every issue that arises in an appeal after hearing both the parties then the omission to frame points of determination separately by the First Appellate Court wouldn't prove fatal.

Order 41 of CPC deals with appeals from original decrees, wherein Rule 31 lays down that the judgment of the first 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.

The appellant contended that the First Appellate Court omitted to frame the points for determination against the appeal from the original decree passed by the trial court.

Rejecting such a contention, the Court placed reliance on the Judgment of Laliteshwar Prasad Singh and others vs. S.P. Srivastava (Dead) thru. Lrs, where it was held that the mere omission to frame the points for determination would not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate Court, provided that the first appellate Court recorded its reasons based on the evidence adduced by both parties.

“As already noted hereinabove, the High Court did set out all the issues framed by the Trial Court in the body of the judgment and was, therefore, fully conscious of all the points that it had to consider in the appeal. Further, we do not find that any particular issue that was considered by the Trial Court was left out by the High Court while adjudicating the appeal. In effect, we do not find merit in the contention that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on this preliminary ground, warranting reconsideration of the first appeal by the High Court afresh.”, the Supreme Court observed in the present case.

Based on the aforesaid observations, the Cout held that the High Court was fully justified in allowing the first appeal filed by the Respondent.

Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Thakkar, Adv. Mr. Mrugen Purohit, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv. Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Sr. Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv.

Case Title: Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others Versus Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 369

Click here to read/download the judgment