Supreme Court holds Order 41 Rule 31 CPC subject to substantial compliance, sets aside High Court’s remand

A two-judge bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard an appeal against a Lucknow Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had partly allowed a second appeal and remitted the matter to the First Appellate Court on the ground that the appellate court had failed to frame the "points for determination" as required by Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The substantial question framed by the High Court was whether it was incumbent on the Appellate Court to frame the points for determination as per Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.

The Court disagreed with the High Court and allowed the appeal, holding that Rule 31 was not to be treated as an inflexible technicality and that non-compliance did not automatically vitiate an appellate judgment where there was "substantial compliance" considered in the context of the judgment delivered. The Court said it was "in complete disagreement with the view taken by the High Court" that failure to frame points would render the judgment wholly void. It followed the ratio in G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai and others [(2006) 3 SCC 224] and reiterated that whether there had been substantial compliance must be determined by reference to the nature of the judgment in each case. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The provisions of Rule 31 should therefore be reasonably construed and should be held to require the various particulars to be mentioned in the judgment only when the appellant has actually raised certain points for determination by the Appellate Court, and not when no such points are raised.” The Court further noted that "Non-compliance with the provisions, 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."

Background The dispute arose from a second appeal decided by the Allahabad High Court on September 4, 2017, which found that the First Appellate Court had not complied with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC by failing to set out points for determination. Relying on several authorities, the High Court remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The present Special Leave Petition (C) No.2511/2018 (Civil Appeal No.5213/2025) challenged that view.

The Supreme Court surveyed precedent, including the Privy Council in Mt. Fakrunisa v. Moulvi Izarus (AIR 1921 PC 55), and this Court’s decisions in Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Thakur Kalyan Singh and Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, stressing that procedural codes were intended to facilitate justice and should not be given an overly technical construction. The bench interpreted Order 41 Rule 31 in light of Order 41 Rule 30, which permits the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment after hearing parties and, where a written judgment is to be pronounced, to read out "the points for determination, the decision thereon and the final order passed in the appeal" without reading the whole judgment aloud.

Relying principally on G. Amalorpavam, the Court held that the mandate of Rule 31 must be applied with reasonable elasticity: particulars required by the rule need be recorded only where the appellant had actually advanced points to be determined. The Court also reiterated the principle that it was the duty of the appellant to show that the judgment under appeal was erroneous and, if nothing was urged, the appellate court could record that nothing had been pressed by the appellant. In consequence, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned High Court judgment and order, and disposed of pending applications; no interim directions or remand to the First Appellate Court were issued by this Court.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.5213/2025 (@Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2511/2018) Case Title: Nafees Ahmad & Anr. v. Soinuddin & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment