Allahabad High Court
Ram Chandar vs Ram Jiyawan on 17 July, 2017
Author: Anjani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?AFR Court No. - 5 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 783 of 2017 Appellant :- Ram Chandar Respondent :- Ram Jiyawan Counsel for Appellant :- A.P.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Triloki Nath Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
This plaintiff's second appeal arises out of a suit for permanent injunction and is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below.
The sole contention of counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is that the first appellate Court failed to state the points arising for determination in the appeal. Its judgment is vitiated on account of non-compliance of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. He has further submitted that the appellate Court has decided only the issues framed by the trial Court. The relevant provision, namely, Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. mandates that the first appellate Court must state in its judgment. The points arising for consideration in the appeal.
In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on Vinod Kumar Vs. Gangadhar, 2015 RD (126) 646, A.M. Sangappa Vs. Sangondeppa, AWC 2014(2) 1153 and B. V. Nagesh Vs. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, 2011 AWC(12) 1810.
It is not denied that the issues which had been framed by the trial Court, alone arose for consideration in the suit. Admittedly, as per counsel for the appellant, the first appellate Court has dealt with all these issues.
It therefore stands admitted and is also found upon a perusal of the first appellate order that all the issues arising for consideration have been adverted to. This, in my considered opinion is sufficient compliance of the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C., even though differently worded points for determination have not been framed by the first appellate Court. It is also relevant to note that the judgment of the appellate Court is one of affirmance and not one of reversal.
Moreover, despite a pointed query by the Court, counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any specific issue or evidence which has escaped consideration of the first appellate Court.
Thus, this court finds that all issues framed by the trial Court have been duly adverted to in appeal, which is substantial compliance of the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. A similar view has been taken in Raju Vs. Muthuammal, AIR 2004 Madras 134, Genba Sahdu Modak Vs. Suryakant Vitthal Modak, AIR 2006 Bombay 62 and Ajit Ojha Vs. Lallan Ojha, AIR 2006 Patna 143.
For the same reasons, the appellant is not entitled to any benefit on the basis of the judgments cited on his behalf.
Upon a perusal of the record and upon hearing hearing counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal which is concluded by concurrent findings of fact.
The second appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.7.2017 RKM