Appellate Court's Jurisdiction Under Section 96 CPC Involves Rehearing On Questions Of Law As Well As Fact: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an appellate court's jurisdiction under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, involves a rehearing of appeal on questions of law as well as fact.

The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Surya Kant observed thus while setting aside an order passed by Karnataka High Court which had dismissed the appeal filed against a Trial Court judgment. The Trial Court order dealt with a petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act praying for issuance of a letter of administration in respect of a Will executed by one Srinivas Gambhir.

The court noted that though the appeal before the High Court involved questions of law and facts, it dismissed the appeal without examination any of these aspects by a cryptic order.

In its judgment, the bench referred to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for filing of an appeal from the decree passed by a court of original jurisdiction and Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC which provides the guidelines to the appellate court for deciding the appeal. The bench said that the judgment of the appellate court shall state (a) 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.  

"It is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings. The appellate court's jurisdiction involves a rehearing of appeal on questions of law as well as fact. The first appeal is a valuable right, and, at that stage, all questions of fact and law decided by the trial court are open for re-consideration. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect conscious application of mind and must record the court's findings, supported by reasons for its decision in respect of all the issues, along with the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties. Needless to say, the first appellate court is required to comply with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and non-observance of these requirements lead to infirmity in the judgment". the court added.

The bench observed that, since in the instant case, the High Court has not complied with any of the aforesaid requirements, it has to re-consider the matter.  

CASE: MANJULA vs. SHYAMSUNDAR [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6744 of 2013]

CORAM: Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Surya Kant

COUNSEL: AOR Md. Shahid Anwar, AOR Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv C.M.Angadi

CITATION: LL 2021 SC 52

 Click here to Read/Download Judgment