Order 41 Rule 31 CPC- Appellate Court Needs To Mention Particulars Only When Appellant Raises Points For Determination: Supreme Court

The appeal before the Apex Court arose from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court by which the Second Appeal filed by the respondents came to be partly allowed and the matter was remitted to the First Appellate Court on the ground that the First Appellate Court failed to comply with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The substantial question of law formulated by the High Court was whether it is incumbent upon the Appellate Court to frame the point of determination as per the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC while deciding the first appeal.

The Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held, “We propose to follow the dictum as laid by this Court in the case of “G. Amalorpavam And Others v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai And Others” reported in (2006) 3 SCC 224, wherein this Court observed that whether in a particular case, there has been substantial compliance, with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC should be determined on the nature of the judgment delivered in each case. Non-compliance with the provisions, by itself, may not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly void and may be ignored if there has been a substantial compliance with it.”

“The provisions of Rule 31 should therefore be reasonably construed and should be held to require the various particulars to be mentioned in the judgment only when the appellant has actually raised certain points for determination by the Appellate Court, and not when no such points are raised”, it added.

AOR Pyoli represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate M.C. Dhingra represented the Respondent.

Reasoning

The Bench noticed that the High Court relying upon few decisions took the view that Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is mandatory and the failure on the part of the Appellate Court to frame the points for determination as per the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC would vitiate the entire judgment and make it wholly void. The Bench strongly disagreed with this view.

Relying upon the judgment in G. Amalorpavam And Others v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai And Others (2006), the Bench affirmed the view that non-compliance with the provisions, by itself, may not vitiate the judgment. Referring to Rule 30 of Order 41, the Bench held, “Thus, this Rule does not make it incumbent on the Appellate Court to refer to any part of the proceedings in the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred. The Appellate Court can refer, after hearing the parties and their pleaders, to any part of these proceedings to which reference is considered necessary. It is in the discretion of the Appellate Court to refer to the proceedings. It is competent to pronounce judgment after hearing what the parties or their pleaders submit to it for consideration.”

Further referring to the judgment in Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Thakur Kalyan Singh and Anr.” reported in (1963), the Bench said, “It follows therefore that if the appellant submits nothing for its consideration, the Appellate Court can decide the appeal without any reference to any proceedings of the courts below and, in doing so, it can simply say that the appellants have not urged anything which would tend to show that the judgment and decree under appeal were wrong.”

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the judgment of the High Court.

Cause Title: Nafees Ahmad & Anr. v. Soinuddin & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 520)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Pyoli, Advocate Saumya Dwivedi

Respondent: Senior Advocate M.C. Dhingra, AOR Gaurav Dhingra, Advocates Shashank Singh, Surendra Gautam, Lalit Naagar

Click here to read/download Judgment