Or.41, Rule 31 of C.P.C - Powers of first Appellate court - The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law.- Apex court held that - 2015 S.C.(2014) MSK Law Reports 2


Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original  decrees.  Among  the  various
rules, Rule 31 mandates that the  judgment  of  the  appellate  court  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.
The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or  affirm  the  findings
of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties  and
unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing  both
on questions of fact and law. The judgment  of  the  appellate  court  must,
therefore, reflect its conscious application of  mind  and  record  findings
supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with  the  contentions
put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the  appellate  court.
Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of  the  High  Court  to
deal with all the  issues  and  the  evidence  led  by  the  parties  before
recording its findings. The  first  appeal  is  a  valuable  right  and  the
parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on  facts  and
the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all  the  issues  of
law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in  support  of  the  findings.
Being the first appellate court, it was the duty of the High Court  to
have decided  the  first  appeal  keeping  in  view  the  scope  and  powers
conferred on it under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31  ibid  mentioned
above.  It  was  unfortunately  not  done,  thereby,  resulting  in  causing
prejudice to the appellant whose valuable right to prosecute  in  the  first
appeal on facts and law was adversely affected which, in turn, deprived  him
of a hearing in the appeal in accordance with law.
 It is for this reason, we are unable to uphold the  impugned  judgment
of the High Court.
The appeal thus succeeds and  is  accordingly  allowed.  The  impugned
judgment is set aside.
The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the  first  appeal
afresh, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by this Court  quoted
supra. - 2015 S.C.(2014) MSK Law Reports 2.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)