CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Ss. 96, 100 & Or. XLI R. 31 — First appeal as final Court of fact — Duty to frame proper points for determination — Requirement of reasoned findings.
An appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and the first appellate Court is the final Court on facts. It is bound to (i) frame proper points for determination, (ii) independently assess oral and documentary evidence on all material issues, and (iii) record reasoned findings on each such point. A mere general concurrence with the trial Court without formulating and answering points as mandated by Order XLI Rule 31 CPC renders the appellate judgment legally unsustainable. (Relied on H. Siddiqui (Dead) by LRs v. A. Ramalingam, MANU/SC/0174/2011.)
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Or. VIII R. 6-A, Or. XLI R. 31 — Counter-claim decided along with suit — Single composite judgment and decree — Maintainability of single appeal.
Where the plaintiff’s suit and defendant’s counter-claim are tried together, common evidence is recorded and a single judgment and a single composite decree are passed disposing of both the suit and the counter-claim, it is not necessary for the aggrieved defendant to file two separate first appeals. A single appeal challenging the composite decree is maintainable, provided the memorandum contains grounds against both the suit decree and the dismissal of the counter-claim and appropriate composite valuation and Court-fee are paid. (Followed Narhari v. Shankar, AIR 1953 SC 419; Hansi Town Improvement Trust v. Sham Sunder, AIR Online 2024 P&H 759; Shri Shankar Masu Dokare v. Shobha Subhash Dokare, 2015 (4) ALL MR 53.)
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Or. VIII R. 6-A — Nature of counter-claim — “Separate suit” fiction — Effect on appellate remedies.
A counter-claim, though by legal fiction treated as a “cross-suit”, remains in substance part of the same lis and culminates in one composite judgment and decree under Order VIII Rule 6-A(2) CPC. For appellate purposes, the decree on the counter-claim is not an independent decree requiring a separate appeal where both sides have been decided by a common judgment and decree.
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — S. 100 — Second appeal — Scope of interference — First appellate Court’s failure to discharge statutory duty — Substantial question of law.
Normally, concurrent findings of fact are not to be interfered with under Section 100 CPC except where such findings are vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence, reliance on inadmissible evidence, or are otherwise perverse. However, where the first appellate Court fails to frame proper points for determination, omits to deal with the counter-claim, and does not comply with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, the resulting infirmity itself gives rise to a substantial question of law, warranting interference and remand. (Applied Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh, AIR 1993 SC 398; Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, AIR 1999 SC 471.)
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Or. XLI R. 31 — Omission to deal with counter-claim in appeal — Illegality.
Where the trial Court decrees the suit for declaration and recovery of possession and simultaneously dismisses the defendant’s counter-claim for declaration and injunction, and the defendant files a first appeal challenging both parts of the decree with separate Court-fee, the first appellate Court is duty-bound to adjudicate not only the plaintiff’s claim but also the counter-claim. Failure to frame any point on the counter-claim and to return findings thereon vitiates the judgment for non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Or. XLI R. 23-A & S. 107 — Remand — When justified.
Where the first appellate Court has neither framed the necessary points regarding (i) plaintiff’s title to the entire plaint schedule property nor (ii) defendant’s asserted title to the northern portion under his counter-claim, nor undertaken an independent appraisal of the evidence on those issues, the proper course in second appeal is to set aside the first appellate judgment and remand the appeal to the first appellate Court with specific directions to (a) frame appropriate points, (b) hear both sides, and (c) dispose of the appeal afresh on merits, uninfluenced by its earlier findings, within a stipulated time.
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE — Procedural law as handmaid of justice — Construction of rules.
Procedural provisions, including those governing appeals and counter-claims, are intended to facilitate adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. They must not be construed in a narrow, technical manner so as to defeat substantive rights, especially where a litigant has in fact challenged the entire composite decree and paid proper Court-fee.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a judgment delivered by Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao on November 10, 2025, allowed the Second Appeal (S.A. No. 88/2025).
The Court set aside the decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court (VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, in A.S. No. 14 of 2016) and remanded the matter back to the First Appellate Court for a fresh hearing and decision on merits.
The core reason for the remand was that the First Appellate Court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) by not framing and deciding all necessary points for determination, specifically neglecting the Counterclaim filed by the Appellant (Defendant No. 2).
Parties and History of the Case
| Court Level | Case No. | Date of Judgment | Outcome |
| Trial Court | O.S. No. 171 of 2010 | 30-11-2015 | Suit decreed in favor of the Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1). Counterclaim dismissed. |
| First Appellate Court | A.S. No. 14 of 2016 | 14-11-2024 | Appeal dismissed, confirming the Trial Court's judgment. |
| High Court (Second Appeal) | S.A. No. 88 of 2025 | 10-11-2025 | Appeal Allowed/Remanded to the First Appellate Court. |
| Role in Second Appeal | Name | Role in Original Suit (O.S. No. 171/2010) |
| Appellant | Arumilli Kasi Viswanadham | Defendant No. 2 (Counterclaimant) |
| Respondent No. 1 | Rimmalapudi Krishna Veni | Plaintiff |
| Respondent No. 2 | (Unnamed in S.A. details) | Defendant No. 1 |
Substantial Questions of Law
The High Court framed the following two Substantial Questions of Law for its consideration:
Whether the first appellate Court is justified in confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court without deciding the counter-claim relief dismissed by the trial Court though the appellant has paid separate Court fee in the first appeal for the said relief?
Whether the decree and judgment passed by the first appellate Court is in accordance with law?
High Court's Reasoning for Remand
1. Failure to Comply with C.P.C. Order XLI Rule 31
The fundamental flaw was the First Appellate Court's judgment being "unsatisfactory" and not in accordance with Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C., which mandates that the judgment shall state:
The points for determination.
The decision thereon.
The reasons for the decision.
The First Appellate Court framed only one generic point: "Whether the judgment and decree... is liable to be set aside?", which was insufficient. It failed to frame points specifically addressing:
The Plaintiff's claim for declaration of title and possession.
The dismissal of the Counterclaim filed by Defendant No. 2 (Appellant).
2. Duty of the First Appellate Court
The High Court emphasized that the first appeal is a valuable right, and it is a continuation of the original proceedings. The First Appellate Court, being the final Court of facts, must:
Address all the issues of law and fact decided by the Trial Court.
Independently assess the oral and documentary evidence.
Record findings supported by reasons on all issues and contentions.
3. Maintainability of a Single Appeal for Suit and Counterclaim
The High Court rejected the Respondent's (Plaintiff's) contention that the Appellant should have filed two separate appeals (one for the suit decree and one for the counterclaim dismissal). Citing various Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Court held that:
Where there is one trial, one finding, and one composite decision (common judgment and decree) on both the suit and the counterclaim, a single memorandum of appeal challenging both is maintainable.
The Appellant had correctly paid composite Court fees on both the suit claim and the counterclaim relief.
4. Conclusion
Since the First Appellate Court completely failed to apply its mind and decide the Counterclaim, its judgment was deemed legally unsustainable.
Directions on Remand
The High Court remanded the case back to the VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, with a strict direction to decide the First Appeal (A.S. No. 14 of 2016) on merits after framing the following specific points for determination:
Whether the respondent-plaintiff is having right and title in the total plaint schedule property?
Whether the appellant-defendant No. 2 has got right and title over northern portion of the plaint schedule property as claimed in the counterclaim?
The entire exercise must be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the judgment copy.
No comments:
Post a Comment