LexG. AMALORPAVAM AND ORS. versus R.C. DIOCESE OF MADURAI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,.
~
~
G. AMALORPAVAM AND ORS.
A
v.
R.C. DIOCESE OF MADURAI AND ORS.
MARCH 6, 2006
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]
B
"'
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; 0.41 R.31 and Section 100:
' .
I
Appellate Court-Judgment-Order 41 Rule 31-lmplication of-Held: c
Object of the Rule is to focus attention of the Court on rival contentions to
provide the parties opportunity in understanding the ground upon which
decision founded and to avail the remedy of second appeal, if they so
desire-Since first Appellate Court on consideration of the entire evidence
came to the finding supported by reasons, it amounts to substantial compliance
of the provisions under 0.41 R.31-Since High Court, while affirming the D
\.
judgment of the trial Court, categorically recorded that the first Appellate
Court had arrived at its finding on the basis of evidence led by the parties
)
. and furnished detailed reasons thereof, orders of the Courts below do not
suffer from any infirmity.
The respondent filed a suit for possession of the property in dispute E
for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The Trial Court decreed the
suit. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred an appeal, which was dismissed
by the first Appellate Court. Appellants preferred Second Appeal, which
was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeals.
j.
Appellants contended that the points for d-etermination were not F
1' )
specifically indicated by the First appellate Court and, therefore, the
judgment was non-est; and that the High Court did not keep in view the
true scope and ambit of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
G
HELD: 1.1. Where the appellate court has considered the entire evidence
-{
y
on record and discussed the same in detail, come to any conclusion and its
· findings are supported by reasons even though the points have not been framed
by the appellate Court there is substantial compliance with the provisions of
899
H
900
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006] 2 S.C.R.
A Order 41Rule31 CPC and the judgment is not in any manner vitiated by the
absence of a point of determination. (902-F, G (
1.2. The object of the Rule in making it incumbent upon the appellate
court to frame points for determination and to cite reasons for the decision is
to focus attention of the Court on the rival contentions which arise for
B determination and also to provide litigant parties opportunity in
understanding the ground upon which the decision is founded with a view
to enable them to know the basis of the decision and if so considered
appropriate and so advised to avail the remedy of Second Appeal conferred
by Section 100 CPC. (903-A, BJ
C
Girijanandini Devi and Ors. v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR (1967)
SC 1124 and Santosh Hazari v. Purshottam Tiwari (Deceased) by lrs .. (2001 J
3 sec 179, relied on.
1.3. It has been categorically recorded by the High Court that the
First Appellate Court had considered the evidence led on behalf of the
D parties and has given finding to come to the conclusions arrived at. It noted
that the lower appellate Court had independently considered the evidence
and had given different findings on the issues framed by the trial Court
and on the basis of the arguments which were advanced before it. It was
further noted that there was detailed discussion giving reasons for
E affirming the order of the trial Court. However, the High Court would
not consider it necessary to go into the argument of the appellant that the
plaintiff was the diocese represe11ted by its procurator, and therefore, he
is not entitled to any relief since this point was not urged before it. Judged
in the background of these legal principles, the judgment of the High Court
does not suffer from any infirmity. (904-H; 905-A-CJ
F
G
H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 894-895 of
2002.
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 4.9.2000 of the Madras High
Court in Second Appeal No. 932/2000 and CMP No. 8275/2000.
Sundaravaradan. Senthil Jagadeesan and V. Ramasubramanian for the
Appellants.
T.L.V. Iyer and N. Annapoorani for the Respondents.
• •
'
·~
G.AMALORPAVAMv. R.C. DIOCESE OF MADURAI [PASAYAT,J.] 901
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARIJIT PASAY AT, J. These two appeals are directed against the orders
of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. A Second Appeal was
dismissed and the review petition filed was also dismissed.
A
Learned SingleExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.