The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed a second appeal pending for over 48 years, clarifying that the First Appellate Court is not strictly required to frame points for determination in every case if the judgment reflects a conscious application of mind and addresses all contentions.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that substantial compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) depends on the nature of the judgment delivered and that non-compliance does not inherently vitiate the decision.
Background of the Case
The matter originated as a defendants’ second appeal in 1978 (Second Appeal No. 1905 of 1978) and remained pending for 48 years. The appeal was initially admitted on April 7, 1979, based on two primary grounds from the memorandum of appeal:
- Violation of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC: Alleging the First Appellate Court acted illegally by not framing points for determination.
- Lack of Pecuniary Jurisdiction: Contending the original suit was instituted in a court (Munsif) that lacked jurisdiction as the valuation was Rs. 19,500/-, exceeding the then-limit of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Court noted that the memorandum of appeal failed to precisely state substantial questions of law as required under Section 100(3) CPC, but proceeded to treat the grounds as “deemed substantial questions” given the extreme delay in the case.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellants, represented by Sri R.U. Ansari, argued that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC are mandatory. They relied on recent legal developments to suggest that the First Appellate Court’s failure to frame points for determination rendered the judgment void. Regarding jurisdiction, they argued the suit’s valuation defect could not be cured by a transfer of the case under Section 24 CPC.
No counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents during the hearing.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court meticulously examined the definition of a “substantial question of law,” citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Chandraban (deceased) vs. Saraswati (2022), which held that such a question must be “deable, not previously settled by law of the land… and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case.”
Regarding the framing of points for determination, Justice Shamshery referred to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Nafees Ahmad vs. Soinuddin (2025). Quoting from that judgment, the Court noted:
“Non-compliance with the provisions [of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC], by itself, may not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly void and may be ignored if there has been a substantial compliance with it.”
The Court further observed that it is the duty of the appellant to show why a judgment should be disturbed. If an appellant urges nothing new, the Appellate Court can decide the appeal by simply stating that nothing was urged to show the lower court’s decree was wrong.
On the issue of jurisdiction and valuation, the Court found that the Trial Court had already addressed this on August 18, 1973. The plaintiffs had amended the suit, corrected the valuation, and paid the deficient court fee. The High Court noted that this issue was not pressed in the first appeal and did not constitute a substantial question of law.
Decision
The Court emphasized that findings of fact, even if erroneous, cannot be reopened in a second appeal. Referring to Rusi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bhavna Seth (2026), the Court held:
“…findings of fact howsoever erroneous cannot be reopened and disturbed in second appeal which is required to be adjudicated only upon a substantial question of law, if any, arisen therein.”
Finding no substantial question of law involved, the High Court dismissed the appeal and vacated any existing interim orders.
Case Details Block:
- Case Title: Smt. Qamrunnisa And Others vs. Smt. Tamizan And Others
- Case No.: SECOND APPEAL No. 1905 of 1978
- Bench: Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- Date: April 10, 2026
