Second appeal – Duty of the High Court to decide the first appeal keeping in view the scope and powers conferred on it under CPC CPC – 0.41R.31 – second appeal – Being the first appellate court, it was, therefore, the duty of the High Court to decide the first appeal keeping in view the scope and powers conferred on it under S.96 read with 0.41R.31 of the CPC mentioned above. – points for determination – find that for non-compliance of the provisions of law as laid down in 0.41R.31, the appellate court judgment is bad in law. – No doubt, when the appellate court agrees with the views of the trial court on evidence, it need not restate effect of evidence or reiterate reasons given by the trial court. – suit for recovery of vacant possession of the land – suit decreed by trial court – affirming the judgment and decree – Regular Second Appeal! is under challenge – considering the probative value of the admitted documents – held, provisions of 0.41R.31 of the CPC are mandatory and if the judgment of the Appellate Court does not follow the provisions of 0.41R.31, the judgment is vitiated. – it was further held that in the case in hand the provisions of 0.41R.31 were not complied with by the first appellate court – The case is remanded to the first appellate court for writing a fresh judgment in compliance with the aforesaid law. The learned first appellate court shall give opportunity to both sides to submit oral arguments before passing the judgment. #highcourt #gauhatihighcourt #secondappeal #suit #possession #recoveryofpossession #vacantland #regularsecondappeal
Rajasthan High Court Judgment
Rajasthan High Court Judgment Late production of documents – Sound reason were furnished justifying delay for non-production of documents CPC – 0O.8R.1A(3) – Late production of documents, the court found that valid reasons were provided to justify the delay in submitting the documents along with the written statement. It is well established that courts should focus on delivering substantial justice, ensuring that procedural violations do not unduly prejudice the opposing party. As such, when a party files an application for the production of documents under O.8R.1A (3), the court should adopt a lenient approach. The court allowed the application, noting that the respondent-plaintiff retains the right to raise any objections regarding the admissibility of the documents before the trial court. The court emphasized that while procedural rules are important, they should not obstruct the fair administration of justice, and allowed the late production of the documents to ensure that the case is decided on its merits. Application Allowed.