Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)Ajitsinh Babubhai Jadav vs Wadhwan Mahajan on 5 March, 2013
7. It is worthwhile to refer to the decision in case of Ajitsinh
Babubhai Jadav Vs. Wadhwan Mahajan Panjarapol reported
in 2013 LawSuit(Guj) 251, the Court has held as under:
Thakur Sukhpal Singh vs Thakur Kalyan Singh on 2 May, 1962
Being the
final Court of fact, the first appellate court must not record
mere general expression of concurrence with the trial
Court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision
on such point independently to that of the trial Court. Thus,
the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in
detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the
points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and
the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements
of the said statutory provisions. (Vide: Sukhpal Singh v.
Kalyan Singh, AIR 1963 SC 146; Girijanandini Devi v.
Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124; G.
Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, 2006 (3) SCC
224; Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, 2007 (8) SCC
600; and Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra
Chowdhari, AIR 2007 (SC 2380: 2007 (10) SCC 296.
G. Amalorpavam & Ors vs R.C. Diocese Of Madurai & Ors on 6 March, 2006
Being the
final Court of fact, the first appellate court must not record
mere general expression of concurrence with the trial
Court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision
on such point independently to that of the trial Court. Thus,
the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in
detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the
points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and
the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements
of the said statutory provisions. (Vide: Sukhpal Singh v.
Kalyan Singh, AIR 1963 SC 146; Girijanandini Devi v.
Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124; G.
Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, 2006 (3) SCC
224; Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, 2007 (8) SCC
600; and Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra
Chowdhari, AIR 2007 (SC 2380: 2007 (10) SCC 296.
Shiv Kumar Sharma vs Santosh Kumari on 18 September, 2007
Being the
final Court of fact, the first appellate court must not record
mere general expression of concurrence with the trial
Court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision
on such point independently to that of the trial Court. Thus,
the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in
detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the
points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and
the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements
of the said statutory provisions. (Vide: Sukhpal Singh v.
Kalyan Singh, AIR 1963 SC 146; Girijanandini Devi v.
Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124; G.
Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, 2006 (3) SCC
224; Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, 2007 (8) SCC
600; and Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra
Chowdhari, AIR 2007 (SC 2380: 2007 (10) SCC 296.
Gannmani Anasuya & Ors vs Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary & Ors on 17 May, 2007
Being the
final Court of fact, the first appellate court must not record
mere general expression of concurrence with the trial
Court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision
on such point independently to that of the trial Court. Thus,
the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in
detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the
points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and
the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements
of the said statutory provisions. (Vide: Sukhpal Singh v.
Kalyan Singh, AIR 1963 SC 146; Girijanandini Devi v.
Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124; G.
Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, 2006 (3) SCC
224; Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, 2007 (8) SCC
600; and Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra
Chowdhari, AIR 2007 (SC 2380: 2007 (10) SCC 296.
B.V.Nagesh & Anr vs H.V.Sreenivasa Murthy on 24 September, 2010
In B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy reported in
JT 2010(10) SC 551: 2010 (13) SCC 530, while dealing with
the issue, this Court held as under:
Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001
"4. 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 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
Page 4 of 11
Downloaded on : Wed Sep 21 20:23:50 IST 2022
C/SA/301/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/09/2022
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 v. Purushottam Tiwari, 2001 (3) SCC
179 and Madhukar v. Sangram, 2001 (4) SCC 756."
Madhukar And Ors vs Sangram And Ors on 20 April, 2001
"4. 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 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
Page 4 of 11
Downloaded on : Wed Sep 21 20:23:50 IST 2022
C/SA/301/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/09/2022
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 v. Purushottam Tiwari, 2001 (3) SCC
179 and Madhukar v. Sangram, 2001 (4) SCC 756."
Legal Heirs Of Deceased Budhabhai ... vs Shantaben Wd/O Bhalabhai Becharbhai ... on 8 June, 2017
In a recent case of Budhabhai Bhikhabhai Parmarand
and another Vs. Shantaben Wd/o Bhalabhai Becharbhai,
2013(1)G.L.H.127, this Court, while dealing with the
provision of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and
the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code by relying
upon the case of H. Siddiqui (dead) by Lrs. (supra), has
held that the first Appellate Court has to decide the Appeal
in accordance with law, on merits and after framing points
for determination as envisaged under Order- 41, Rule-31 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. It has also been observed that
on each point, the Appellate Court has to give its own
finding that too after re-appreciation of entire evidence on
record.