The Rajasthan High Court affirmed that the Appellate Court must adhere to the stipulations of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and issue a reasoned judgment. This pronouncement came in response to a petition challenging the Board of Revenue's decision to allow an appeal, overturning a prior judgment by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal (RAA), and remanding the case for fresh consideration.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand presided over the bench, asserting that the Appellate Court is obligated to provide a reasoned judgment in compliance with the requirements set forth in Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. Emphasizing the mandatory nature of this legal requirement, the court declared that non-compliance by the Appellate Court renders the judgment legally flawed.
Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate RK Mathur argued that the Board's decision to remand the case was based on a technicality—specifically, the alleged failure of the RAA to adhere to the procedural requirements outlined in Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, which delineates the necessary contents of an appellate court's judgment.
The central issue before the court was whether the First Appellate Court was obligated to decide the appeal in accordance with the procedural provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. The court sided with the Board's decision, underscoring the significance of compliance with this rule. It asserted that an appeal is a continuation of the proceedings from the original court and involves a comprehensive re-evaluation of both law and facts. The court highlighted the appellant's right to a thorough re-examination of all questions of fact and law decided by the trial court.
In support of its stance, the court cited several Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing the necessity for appellate courts to address all issues, provide reasoning for their decisions, and adhere to procedural guidelines. The court underscored the consistent emphasis by the Apex Court on the importance of providing reasons in support of conclusions, insisting that the court must address all issues raised by the parties involved in the litigation.
In its detailed analysis, the court concluded that the RAA's judgment failed to meet the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. Consequently, it deemed the Board of Revenue's decision to remand the case for a fresh decision as justified. The court explicitly stated that the judgment passed by the RAA did not satisfy the stipulations of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, rendering it legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Board of Revenue's directive to the RAA to reconsider the issues based on the available evidence on record was deemed appropriate.
TAGS: Rajasthan High Court Appellate Court Order 41 Rule 31 CPC reasoned judgment Board of Revenue Revenue Appellate Tribunal
