REPORTABLE     

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  8259          OF 2010 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 20146 OF 2009)

B.V. Nagesh & Anr.                      .... Appellant (s)

Versus

H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy        .... Respondent(s)

O R D E R  

1) Leave granted.

2) Heard  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellants  and  

respondent appearing in person.  

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 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  

1

law  set  aside  the  judgment  and  decree  of  the  trial  Court  and  

modified  the  same  without  proper  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  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 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 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 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  

2

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 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.  [Vide Santosh Hazari vs.  Purushottam Tiwari, (2001)  

3 SCC 179 = JT (2001) 2 SC 407 and Madhukar and Others vs.  

Sangram 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 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  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.  

3

6) Inasmuch  as  the  first  appeal  is  pending  from  2003,  we  

request the High Court to dispose of the same as expeditiously as  

possible.  The civil appeal is disposed of accordingly.  

...…………………………………J.                     (P. SATHASIVAM)                                   

...…………………………………J.             (DR. B.S.CHAUHAN)  

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 24, 2010.   

4