LexKANAILAL & ORS. versus RAM CHANDRA SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c (2017] 7 S.C.R. 602 KANAILAL & ORS. v. RAM CHANDRA SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.4165 of 2008) AUGUST 23, 2017 (R.K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.J Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 100 and Or. XLJ, r.31 - Appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of trial Court, dismissed by the High Court in limine - Held: High Court while deciding the appeal neither set out the facts nor the submissions urged by the appellants in support of their appeal and nor gave any reason as to why there was no merit in the submission of appellants and why the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law as required to be made out uls. 100 - Further, there D was non-compliance with the requirements of Or.XU, in regard to the contents of the judgment of the Appellate Court i.e. (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision," (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which appellant is entitled etc. - Since, judgment E impugned did not satisfy the requirements of s.100 and !or Or.XU, r.31 of CPC, it is legally unsustainable. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Mere perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the High Court while deciding the appeal neither set F out the facts nor the submissions urged by the appellants in support of their appeal and nor given any reason as to why the submissions urged by the appellants have no merit and why the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under Section 100 of the Code. It has been consistently emphasized the need for assigning reasons in G support of its conclusion and while doing so must deal with all H the issues raised by the parties to the /is. (Paras 9, 10)[605-E-FJ Jayanmti De & Anr. v. Abani Kanta Barat and Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 455; Santosh Nazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs. (2001) 3 SCC 179 : (2001] 602 KANAILAL & ORS. v. RAM CHANDRA SINGH & ORS. 603 1 SCR 948; Union of India & Ors. v. Jai Prakash A Singh & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 712 : [20071 3 SCR 757 - referred to. 2.1 That apart, Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code which deals with the contents, date and the signature of judgment is also apposite to take note of. [Para 11) (606-E) B 2.2 It is clear from mere reading of the Rule 3l(a) to (d) that it makes it legally obligatory upon the Appellate Court (both- first and second Appellate Court) as to what should the judgment of the Appellate Court contain. Sub-clause(a) provides that the judgment must formulate and state the points arising in the case c for determination. Sub-clause(b) provides that the Court must give decision on such points and sub- clause(c) provides that the judgment shall state the reasons for the decision. So far as sub- clause (d) is concerned, it applies in those cases where the Appellate Court has reversed the decree. In such case, the Court has to specify the relief to which the appellant has become entitled D to as a result of the decree having been reversed in appeal at his ·instance. [Paras 12, 13) [606-H; 607-A-BI 3. While deciding the second appeal which lies only to the High Court, the Court has to further ensure compliance of the requirements of Section 100 of the Code in addition to the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code. In other words, the High Court while hearing the second appeal at the time of its admission has to first find out whether the second appeal involves any substantial question(s) of law and if the Court finds that the appeal does involve any substantial question(s) of law then such question(s) is/are required to be formulated. The appeal can be then heard finally only on such formulated question(s). [Paras 14, 15] [607-C-D] 4. If however, the Court, at the time of hearing the appeal E F on the question of admission, comes to a conclusion that the appeal G does not involve any such question within the meaning of Section . 100 of the Code, then it has to pass a reasoned order keeping in view the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31. Indeed, this being the mandatory requirements of law, its non-compliance by the Appellate Court render their judgment bad in law. [Para 1611607- E) H 604 A B c SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R. Case Law Reference (2011) 6 sec 455 referred to Para9 (2001] 1 SCR 948 referred to Para9 [2007) 3 SCR 757 referred to Para 10 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDIC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.