Appellate court’s failure to address a cross-objection on record constitutes a material jurisdictional irregularity.

The plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed a suit for confirmation of possession and specific performance of a contract based on a registered sale agreement dated 07.01.2008.

The agreement was executed by the predecessor of the defendants (petitioners herein) to sell a plot of land for Rs. 90,000, with possession allegedly delivered on the same day.

Plaintiffs claimed the full consideration was paid by 15.12.2008 and sale permission was obtained on 21.12.2010, yet the defendants refused to execute the sale deed.

The defendants contested, claiming the land was joint property, the agreement was void, and the plaintiffs were merely tenants; they also filed a counter-claim for eviction and arrear rent.

The Trial Court (Munsiff, Dhubri) found the agreement valid but dismissed the suit as barred by limitation.

On appeal, the First Appellate Court (Civil Judge, Dhubri) reversed the finding on limitation and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.

The defendants then filed this revision petition challenging the appellate decree.

1. Whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

2. Whether the First Appellate Court committed a material irregularity by failing to consider the cross-objection filed by the defendants in violation of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC.

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for specific performance starting from the date fixed for performance or, if no date is fixed, from the date the plaintiff has notice of refusal.

Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC, which mandates that the judgment of the Appellate Court must state the points for determination and the reasons for the decision.

Order 41 Rule 30 regarding the pronunciation of judgment.

Supreme Court precedent in Nafees Ahmad & Another v. Soinuddin & Others (2025), which clarifies that while an appellate court has discretion in referencing proceedings, it must address points actually raised by the parties for determination.

The High Court examined the appellate judgment and found that while the Civil Judge addressed the limitation issue—calculating the period from the date of sale permission (21.12.2010) to find the suit filed on 28.02.2012 within time—it completely ignored the cross-objection filed by the defendants on 05.09.2017.

The High Court noted that under Order 41 Rule 31, it was "incumbent upon" the lower appellate court to consider the grounds urged in the cross-objection.

The impugned judgment failed to refer to any submissions made by the parties or the specific grounds raised in the cross-objection, which remained available on record.

Consequently, the High Court determined that the Appellate Court failed to exercise its vested jurisdiction and acted with material irregularity by disposing of the appeal without considering the entire record.

The matter was remanded to the First Appellate Court for a fresh decision after taking into consideration the material on record, including the cross-objection and any submissions made by the parties.

The court ordered the return of the Trial Court Records (TCR).