In a recent legal pronouncement, the Supreme Court elucidated that a lapse in meticulously framing points of determination, as stipulated by Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), does not necessarily spell doom. Rather, the appellate court’s comprehensive handling of the pertinent issues holds paramount importance.
The judicial bench, spearheaded by Justices AS Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar, underscored that while adherence to the procedural mandate is valued, substantial compliance suffices. As long as the first appellate court conscientiously addresses all issues germane to the appeal, the absence of separately framed points bears no fatal consequence.
The written judgment, penned by Justice Sanjay Kumar, emphasized the significance of substantial compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. This entails the first appellate court’s thorough examination of all appeal-related matters following due deliberation and equitable consideration of both litigating parties.
Order 41 of the CPC delineates procedures for appeals from original decrees, with Rule 31 outlining specific requirements for the appellate court’s judgment. Among these requisites are the delineation of points for determination, the corresponding decisions, reasons therefor, and the relief accorded to the appellant in case of decree reversal or modification.
In the case at hand, the appellant contended that the first appellate court failed to frame points for determination concerning the appeal against the trial court’s original decree. However, the Court, drawing from precedent, refuted such claims. Citing Laliteshwar Prasad Singh and others vs. S.P. Srivastava (Dead) thru. Lrs, the Court reiterated that the omission to frame points, per se, does not invalidate the judgment. What holds paramount is the first appellate court’s conscientious articulation of reasons, duly informed by the evidence presented by both parties.
The apex court further emphasized that the first appellate court, in its judgment, explicitly addressed all issues delineated by the trial court. Consequently, no pivotal issue escaped the appellate court’s purview during the adjudication process. Thus, the contention that the judgment warrants invalidation on procedural grounds lacks merit.
In light of these observations, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision to grant relief to the respondent in the first appeal.
This verdict serves as a clarion call for legal practitioners to prioritize substantive justice over procedural technicalities, fostering a jurisprudential landscape anchored in equity and fairness.
