A first appellate court must independently decide all issues with reasons under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.

The appellants challenged the judgment and decree dated 15 December 2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dahod, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2024, whereby the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

In the Second Appeal, the appellants contended that the First Appellate Court had failed to frame appropriate points for determination, had not independently reappreciated the evidence, and had not provided reasons while dismissing the appeal.

The respondents candidly accepted that the appellate judgment contained no independent reasons and consented to a remand for fresh hearing of the regular first appeal.

The appellants also agreed to remand, subject to a direction that the First Appellate Court frame proper points for determination and record independent findings and reasons.

Whether the judgment and decree dated 15 December 2025 passed by the First Appellate Court were vitiated as a non-speaking order and were consequently contrary to the principles of natural justice?

Whether the First Appellate Court’s failure to deal with the contentions raised in the appeal rendered its judgment contrary to the principles of natural justice?

Whether the First Appellate Court’s judgment suffered from patent non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

The Court applied Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, which requires an appellate judgment to state the points for determination, the decision on each point, the reasons for the decision, and, where the decree is reversed or varied, the relief granted.

It further applied the principles governing a first appeal under Section 96 CPC, under which the entire case is ordinarily open for rehearing on facts and law, and the first appellate court must independently consider the evidence, issues, and contentions of the parties.

Relying principally on C. Venkata Swamy v. H.N. Shivanna (Dead) by LRs & Anr., (2018) 1 SCC 604, and the authorities cited therein, including Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179, Madhukar v. Sangram, (2001) 4 SCC 756, and B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530, the Court held that a first appellate judgment must reflect conscious application of mind, address all material issues and contentions, and provide independent reasons for affirming or reversing the Trial Court.

A cryptic or non-speaking appellate judgment fails to discharge the obligation imposed on the first appellate court and may be set aside and remanded for fresh disposal.

The High Court examined the impugned appellate judgment and found, prima facie, that the First Appellate Court had merely concurred with the Trial Court without recording independent findings or reasons, reappreciating the evidence, or framing proper points for determination.

Such omissions were inconsistent with the mandatory requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC and the duty of a first appellate court to independently decide questions of fact and law.

Since the respondents themselves accepted the absence of independent reasoning and both parties agreed that the matter should be remanded, the High Court considered it unnecessary to undertake a detailed determination of the substantial questions of law or examine the merits of the underlying dispute.

The appropriate course was therefore to set aside the defective appellate judgment and restore the regular first appeal for fresh adjudication.

The High Court quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 15 December 2025 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2024 and restored that appeal to the file of the First Appellate Court.

The appellate court was directed to hear and decide the appeal afresh, frame appropriate points for determination after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing, and record independent reasons and findings in accordance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.

All rights and contentions were kept open, the High Court having expressly refrained from examining the merits of the case.

The Second Appeal was accordingly partly allowed, with no order as to costs.