NAFEES AHMAD & ANR.versusSOINUDDIN & ORS.

          [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1403 : 2025 INSC 520

                   Nafees Ahmad & Anr.
                            v.
                    Soinuddin & Ors.
                (Civil Appeal No. 5213 of 2025)
                          16 April 2025
       [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]


                    Issue for Consideration
The High Court in the impugned judgment took the view that
Order 41 Rule 31 is mandatory and the failure on the part of the
First Appellate Court to frame the points for determination as per
Order 41 Rule 31 vitiated the judgment and made it wholly void.
Whether non-compliance of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC would by itself
vitiate the judgment of the Appellate Court; Whether the judgment of
the Appellate Court can be interfered with under Order 41 Rule 31
CPC if the Appellant has not shown any points for determination
in the Appeal.

                           Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 41 Rule 31 – Compliance
of Order 41 Rule 31 to be determined on the nature of judgment
delivered in each case – Non-compliance of Order 41 Rule 31
would not by itself vitiate the judgment of the Appellate Court –
Can be ignored if there is a substantial compliance – Appeal
allowed:
Held: Whether in a particular case, there has been substantial
compliance, with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 should be
determined on the nature of the judgment delivered in each case –
Non-compliance with the provisions would not by itself vitiate the
judgment of the Appellate Court making it wholly void – Reliance
placed on G. Amalorpavam & Ors. v. R.C Diocese of Madurai &
Ors (2006) 3 SCC 224 – Impugned judgment set aside – Appeal
allowed. [Paras 7, 15, 16]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 41 Rule 31 – Compliance
required only when the Appellant raises the points for
determination before the First Appellate Court:
Held: Order 41 Rule 31 should be reasonably construed and should
be held to require the various particulars to be mentioned in the
1404                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     judgment only when the Appellant has actually raised certain points
     for determination by the Appellate Court – Not when no such points
     are raised – If the Appellant submits nothing for its consideration,
     the First Appellate Court can decide the appeal without reference
     to any proceedings of the courts below and in doing so, it can
     simply say that the Appellants have not urged anything which
     would tend to show that the judgment and decree under appeal
     are wrong – Reliance placed on Mt. Fakrunisa v. Moulvi Izarus
     AIR 1921 PC 55; Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Thakur Kalyan Singh
     & Anr. [1963] 2 SCR 733 and Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal,
     Kotah, Bhurey Lal Baya [1955] 2 SCR 1. [Paras 10-12]

                                List of Acts
     Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

                             List of Keywords
     Points for determination; First Appellate Court; Substantial
     compliance; Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5213 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 04.09.2017 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in SA No. 69 of 2008

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Ms. Pyoli, Ms. Saumya Dwivedi.
     Adv. for the Respondents:
     M.C. Dhingra, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Dhingra, Shashank Singh, Surendra
     Gautam, Lalit Naagar.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Order

1.   Leave granted.
2.   This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High
     Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 4-9-2017
     in Second Appeal No.69/2008, by which the Second Appeal filed by
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                        1405

                Nafees Ahmad & Anr. v. Soinuddin & Ors.


     the respondents – herein came to be partly allowed and the matter
     was remitted to the First Appellate Court on the ground that the First
     Appellate Court failed to comply with the provisions of Order 41
     Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
3.   The High Court, while deciding the Second Appeal, formulated the
     following substantial question of law:-
           “Whether it is incumbent upon the Appellate Court to frame
           the point of determination as per the provisions of Order
           41 Rule 31 CPC while deciding the first appeal or not?”
4.   Order 41 Rule 31 CPC reads thus:
           “Rule 31. 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.”
5.   It appears that the High Court relying upon few decisions took the
     view that Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is mandatory and the failure on the
     part of the Appellate Court to frame the points for determination as
     per the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC would vitiate the entire
     judgment and make it wholly void.
6.   Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
     having gone through the materials on record, we are in complete
     disagreement with the view taken by the High Court.
7.   We propose to follow the dictum as laid by this Court in the case of
     “G. Amalorpavam And Others v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai And Others”
     reported in (2006) 3 SCC 224, wherein this Court observed that
     whether in a particular case, there has been substantial compliance,
     with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC should be determined on
     the nature of the judgment delivered in each case. Non-compliance
1406                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     with the provisions, by itself, may not vitiate the judgment and make
     it wholly void and may be ignored if there has been a substantial
     compliance with it.
8.   We may elaborate the issue a little further from a different angle.
9.   The Privy Council observed in “Mt. Fakrunisa v. Moulvi Izarus”
     reported in AIR 1921 PC 55, at p. 56, as under:
          “In every appeal it is incumbent upon the appellants to
          show reason why the judgment appealed from should
          be disturbed; there must be some balance in their
          favour when all the circumstances are considered, to
          justify the alteration of the judgment that stands. Their
          Lordships are unable to find that this duty has been
          discharged.”
10. The Privy Council decision referred to above was looked into by a
    three-Judge Bench in the case of “Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Thakur
    Kalyan Singh and Anr.” reported in (1963) 2 SCR 733, wherein this
    Court observed as under:
          “With respect, we agree with this and hold that it is the duty
          of the appellant to show that the judgment under appeal
          is erroneous for certain reasons and it is only after the
          appellant has shown this that the appellate court would
          call upon the respondent to reply to the contention. It is
          only then that the judgment of the appellate court can
          fully contain all the various matters mentioned in Ruel
          31, Order 41.”
11. This Court observed in “Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah,
    Bhurey Lal Baya” reported in (1955) 2 SCR 1, at page 8:
          “Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such.
          It is procedure, something designed to facilitate justice
          and further its ends: ... Too technical construction of
          sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity
          of interpretation should therefore be guarded against
          (provided always that justice is done to both sides) lest
          the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be
          used to frustrate it.”
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                          1407

                Nafees Ahmad & Anr. v. Soinuddin & Ors.


12. The provisions of Rule 31 should therefore be reasonably construed
    and should be held to require the various particulars to be mentioned
    in the judgment only when the appellant has actually raised certain
    points for determination by the Appellate Court, and not when no
    such points are raised.
13. We must also look into the provisions of Rule 30 of Order 41 for the
    purpose of fortifying our interpretation of Rule 31. Order 41 Rule 30
    CPC reads thus:
           “30. Judgment when and where pronounced.─ (1) The
           Appellate Court, after hearing the parties or their pleaders
           and referring to any part of the proceedings, whether on
           appeal or in the court from whose decree the appeal
           is preferred, to which reference may be considered
           necessary, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either
           at once or on some future day of which notice shall be
           given to the parties or their pleaders.
           (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall
           be sufficient if the points for determination, the decision
           thereon and the final order passed in the appeal are read
           out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out
           the whole judgment, but a copy of the whole judgment shall
           be made available for the perusal of the parties or their
           pleaders immediately after the judgment in pronounced.”
14. Thus, this Rule does not make it incumbent on the Appellate Court to
    refer to any part of the proceedings in the court from whose decree
    the appeal is preferred. The Appellate Court can refer, after hearing
    the parties and their pleaders, to any part of these proceedings to
    which reference be considered necessary. It is in the discretion of
    the Appellate Court to refer to the proceedings. It is competent to
    pronounce judgment after hearing what the parties or their pleaders
    submit to it for consideration. It follows therefore that if the appellant
    submits nothing for its consideration, the Appellate Court can decide
    the appeal without any reference to any proceedings of the courts
    below and, in doing so, it can simply say that the appellants have not
    urged anything which would tend to show that the judgment and decree
    under appeal were wrong. [See : “Thakur Sukhpal Singh” (supra)]
1408                                                            [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


15. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we allow this appeal.
16. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside.
17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Mukund P Unny, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)