Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently in the case of Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and others v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court held that the omission to separately frame issues as per Order XLI Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) shall not be deemed fatal provided that the appellate court has otherwise addressed and dealt with them appropriately.

What was the Background of Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and others v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Supreme Court?

• The Corporation appealed in Gujrat High Court against the judgment and decree passed by a Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. The suit, brought by the appellants, sought compensation of ₹1,63,97,673/- with 18% interest per annum or, alternatively, the allotment of 974 sq. mts. of land in any Town Planning Scheme in the western zone of Ahmedabad and the plaintiffs filed their cross-objection the respondents in the first appeal.
• In the challenged judgment, the High Court ruled in favor of the Corporation, allowing its appeal and dismissing the plaintiffs' cross-objection.
• Despite not separately framing the points for determination as per Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC, the High Court examined the contentions of both parties and extensively quoted the issues framed by the Trial Court.
• The High Court concluded that the plaintiffs could not raise a grievance regarding the non-delivery of the remaining 974 sq. mts. of land.
• Thereafter, the appeal was filled in Supreme Court and the Court allowed the first appeal filed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (the Corporation) and dismissed the cross-objection filed by the respondents in the first appeal.
  • Aggrieved thereby, the said respondents filed the present appeals.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justices AS Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar observed that 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 XLI Rule 31 of CPC in that regard is sufficient.
• Justice Sanjay Kumar further observed that if there's substantial compliance with the mandate of Order XLI 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.
• The Court also held that 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, the Court did 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, the Court did 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.

What is Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC?

About:

• Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC deals with the requirement to separately frame issues in appeals, ensuring clarity and focusing on the appellate process.

Legal Provision:

• Order XLI Rule 31 refers to contents, date and signature of judgment.
• The judgment of the 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,

and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein.

Case Law:

• In the case of Laliteshwar Prasad Singh and others vs. S.P. Srivastava (Dead) thru. Lrs, (2016), it has been established that the failure to frame points for determination does not invalidate the judgment of the first appellate court, as long as the court provides reasoning based on the evidence presented by both parties.