REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.4165 OF 2008

Kanailal & Ors.                  ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Ram Chandra Singh & Ors.                         …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed by the defendants against the final

judgment and order dated 09.09.1999  passed by the High

Court of Calcutta in S.A.T. No. 1082 of 1999 (re-numbered as

S.A.  No.740  of  1999)  whereby  the  appeal  filed  by  the

appellants was summarily dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as

“the Code”).

1

2) Few relevant facts need mention in brief infra.

3) The  appellants  herein  are  the  defendants  whereas  the

respondents are the plaintiffs in the civil suit out of which this

appeal arises.

4) The respondents filed the civil suit being Title Suit No. 37

of  1991  before  the  Sub  Divisional  Court  of  the  Munsif,

Jhargram,  District Midnapore against the appellants inter alia

seeking  partition  in  relation  to  the  suit  properties.  The

appellants filed their written statement and denied the plaint

averments. Parties went to trial on the issues framed for its

determination.  

5) By judgment/decree dated 26.06.1992,  the Trial  Court

dismissed the suit. The respondents, felt aggrieved, filed first

appeal  being  Title  Appeal  No.  240  of  1992  before  the

Additional  District  Judge,  6th Court,  Midnapore.  By

judgment/decree dated  28.01.1999, the first Appellate Court

(Additional District Judge, 6th Court) allowed the appeal filed

by the plaintiffs, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial

2

Court and decreed the plaintiffs’ suit.

6) The appellants (defendants),  felt  aggrieved, filed second

appeal being S.A.T. No.1082 of 1999 (re-numbered as S.A. No.

740 of 1999) before the High Court. By impugned judgment,

the  High  Court  dismissed  the  appeal  in  limine,  which  has

given rise to filing of this appeal by special leave before this

Court by the defendants.

7) The impugned order reads as under :

“This  appeal  is  summarily  dismissed  under  Order  41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.   

There will be no order as to costs.”

8) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on

perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow

the  appeal  and  while  setting  aside  of  the  impugned  order,

remand the case to the High Court for deciding the second

appeal  afresh  after  framing  proper  substantial  questions  of

law, if found to arise in the case.

9) Mere perusal of the impugned order quoted supra would

go  to  show  that  the  High  Court  while  deciding  the  appeal

3

neither set out  the facts nor the submissions urged by the

appellants in support of their appeal and nor given any reason

as to why the submissions urged by the appellants have no

merit  and why the appeal  does not  involve  any substantial

question of law as is required to be made out under Section

100 of the Code. (See- 2011 (6) SCC 455 -  Jayanmti De &

Anr. vs. Abani Kanta Barat and Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 455 and

Santosh  Hazari  vs.  Purushottam  Tiwari  (Deceased)  by

L.Rs., (2001) 3 SCC 179).

10) This  Court  has  consistently  emphasized  the  need  for

assigning reasons in support of its conclusion and while doing

so must deal with all the issues raised by the parties to the lis.

Indeed,  this  Court  has  made  the  following  very  pertinent

observations on this issue in  Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jai

Prakash Singh & Ors.,  (2007)  10 SCC 712 which read as

under:

“Reasons  introduce  clarity  in  an  order.  On  plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set  forth  its  reasons,  howsoever  brief,  in  its  order indicative  of  an  application  of  its  mind,  all  the  more

4

when  its  order  is  amenable  to  further  avenue  of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court’s judgment not sustainable. Reasons are live links between  the  mind  of  the  decision-taker  to  the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived  at.’  Reasons  substitute  subjectivity  by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ‘inscrutable face of the sphinx’, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the  courts  to  perform  their  appellate  function  or exercise  the power of  judicial  review in adjudging the validity  of  the  decision.  Right  to  reason  is  an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter  before  court.  Another  rationale  is  that  the affected  party  can  know  why  the  decision  has  gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice  is  spelling  out  reasons  for  the  order  made,  in other words, a speaking out. The ‘inscrutable face of a sphinx’  is  ordinarily  incongruous  with  a  judicial  or quasi-judicial performance.”

11) That apart, Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code which deals

with the contents, date and the signature of judgment is also

apposite to take note of.   It reads as under:  

“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

5

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 there in.”

12) It is clear from mere reading of the Rule 31(a) to (d) that

it  makes  it  legally  obligatory  upon  the  Appellate  Court

(both-first and second Appellate Court) as to what should the

judgment of the Appellate Court contain.  

13) Sub-clause(a) provides that the judgment must formulate

and  state  the  points  arising  in  the  case  for  determination.

Sub-clause(b) provides that the Court must give decision on

such points  and sub-  clause(c)  provides  that  the  judgment

shall state the reasons for the decision. So far as sub-clause

(d) is concerned, it applies in those cases where the Appellate

Court has reversed the decree. In such case, the Court has to

specify the relief to which the appellant has become entitled to

as a result of the decree having been reversed in appeal at his

instance.

6

14) While deciding the second appeal which lies only to the

High Court, the Court has to further ensure compliance of the

requirements of  Section 100 of  the Code in addition to the

requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code set out above.  

15) In other words, the High Court while hearing the second

appeal  at  the  time  of  its  admission  has  to  first  find  out

whether  the  second  appeal  involves  any  substantial

question(s) of law and if the Court finds that the appeal does

involve  any  substantial  question(s)  of  law  then  such

question(s) is/are required to be formulated. The appeal can

be  then  heard  finally  only  on  such  formulated  question(s).

(See Santosh Hazari (supra).  

16) If however, the Court, at the time of hearing the appeal

on the question of admission, comes to a conclusion that the

appeal does not involve any such question within the meaning

of Section 100 of the Code, then it  has to pass a reasoned

order keeping in view the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31

set out above.  Indeed, this being the mandatory requirements

7

of law, its non-compliance by the Appellate Court render their

judgment bad in law.  

17) As mentioned above, since the judgment impugned does

not  satisfy  the  requirements  of  either  Section  100  or/and

Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code, it is legally unsustainable.

18) In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and

is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The case

is remanded to the High Court for hearing of the appeal afresh

in accordance with law keeping in view the  aforementioned

observations.  

                                            ………...................................J.

[R.K. AGRAWAL]             

 …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; August 23, 2017  

8

ITEM NO.101               COURT NO.9               SECTION XVI                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal  No(s).  4165/2008 KANAILAL & ORS.                                     Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS RAM CHANDRA SINGH & ORS.                           Respondent(s) Date : 23-08-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Appellant(s)  Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR (Not present)                     For Respondent(s)  Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, AOR (Not present)                      

 The Court made the following                              O R D E R

None appears for the parties. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable  

judgment. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed  

of.   

(SWETA DHYANI)                                    (CHANDER BALA) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT                          BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)  

9