B.V. NAGESH & ANR.versusH.V. SREENIVASA MURTHY

                          [201 OJ 11 S.C.R. 784


A                        B.V. NAGESH & ANR.
                                     V.
                      H.V. SREENIVASA MURTHY
                    (Civil Appeal No. 8259 of 2010)
                        SEPTEMBER 24, 2010
B
        [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, JJ.)

         CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908:

c         s.96, 0. 41, r.31 - Regular first appeal - Decision in -
     Held: Order 41 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) reasons for the
     decision; and (d} where the decree appealed from is reversed
0
    or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled - The first
     appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted
     by law, the whole case therein is open for re-hearing and
    parties have a right to be heard both on questions of fact and
     law - The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore,
E   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 - The appellate court has jurisdiction
     to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court - Sitting as a
F    court of 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 - In the instant case, the High Court,
     after narrating the pleadings of both parties, without framing
    points for determination and considering both facts and law
G   set aside the judgment and decree of the trail court and
    modified the same without proper discussion and assigning
     adequate reasons - The High Court has failed to discharge
     the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court - The
    judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant
H                                   784
    B. V. NAGESH & ANR. v. H. V. SREENIVASA                 785
                    MURTHY
aspects have even been noticed - The appeal has been               A
decided in an unsatisfactory manner - The judgment in the
regular first appeal shows that it falls short of considerations
which are expected from the court of first appeal - Accordingly,
the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court are set
aside and the matter is remanded to it for disposal of the         B
regular first appeal afresh in accordance with law.

     Santosh Hazari . Vs. Purushottam Tiwai (Dead) By Lrs.
  2001 (1) SCR 948       =                      =
                          2001 (3) sec 179 2001 (2) JT
407 = 2001 (1) SCALE 712; and Madhukar & Ors. Vs.                  C
Sangram & Ors. 2001 (3) SCR 138 = 2001 (4) SCC 756,
referred to.

                      Case Law Reference:
    2001 (1) SCR 948           referred to           para 4
                                                                   D
    2001 (3) SCR 138           referred to           para 4
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
8259 of 2010.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 10.11.2008 of the High         E
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. No. 1601 of 2003.

    Basava Prabhu S. Patil, B. Subrahmanya Prasad, Ajay
Kumar M., Rajendra Prasad B., V.N. Raghupawthy for the
Appellant.                                                         F
     H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, Respondent-In-Person.

     The following Order of the Cour was delivered

                             ORDER                                 G
     1. Leave granted.

    2. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and
respondent appearing in person.
                                                                   H
    786       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [201 O] 11 S.C.R.


A      3. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court arose
  out of regular first appeal filed under Section 96 CPC. It is the
  grievance of the appellants that the High Court, without
  adverting to all the factual details and various grounds raised,
  disposed of the appeal in a cryptic manner. In the light of the
B above assertion, we verified the impugned judgment of the High
  Court. The High Court, after narrating the pleadings of both
  parties, without framing points for determination and
  considering both facts and law set aside the judgment and
  decree of the trial Court and modified the same without proper
c discussion and assigning adequate reasons.
       4. How regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the
  appellate Court/High Court has been considered by this Court
  in various decisions. Order XLI of C.P.C. deals with appeals
  from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31
D mandates that the judgment of the appellate Court shall state:

          (a) the points for determination;

          (b) the decision thereon;
E         (c) reasons for the decision; and -

         (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied,
    the relief to which the appellant is entitled.

F 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 therein
  is open for re-hearing 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
G 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 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
H
       B. V. NAGESH & ANR. v. H. V. SREENIVASA                  787
                       MURTHY
avaluable right and the parties have a right to be heard both          A
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. [Vide
Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179           =
JT (2001) 2 SC 407 and Madhukar and Others vs. Sang ram                B
and Others,. (2001) 4 SCC 756]

       5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through
the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed
to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate          C
Court. In our view, the judgment under appeal is cryptic and none
of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal
has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our careful
perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it
falls short of considerations which are expected from the Court
of first appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the     D
claim of both parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and
decree of the High Court and remand the regular first appeal
to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.

    6. Inasmuch as the first appeal is pending from 2003, we           E
request the High Court to dispose of the same as expeditiously
as possible. The civil appeal is disposed of accordingly.

R.P.                                         Appeal disposed of.