Failure to frame points for determination warrants setting aside an appellate judgment under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.

The plaintiff/appellant filed Original Suit No. 264 of 2001 for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and construction on specific property

The Trial Court (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Robertsganj) decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff on 20.04.2023, based on ownership and possession findings

Two defendants preferred separate civil appeals (No. 19 of 2023 and No. 22 of 2023)

On 05.02.2026, the first appellate court (Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Sonbhadra) allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the Trial Court without framing specific points for determination

The appellant challenged this remand order before the High Court

1. Whether the first appellate court is Mandatorily required to frame points for determination and state reasons for reversing a trial court decree under Order XLI Rules 30 and 31 of the CPC?

2. Whether the first appellate court’s remand of the matter was legally sustainable in light of the procedure prescribed under Order XLI Rule 23 of the CPC?

Order XLI Rules 30 and 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which mandate that an appellate judgment must state points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision

Order XLI Rule 23 (as amended by the Allahabad High Court), which governs the power of remand when a decree is reversed or where remand is necessary in the interest of justice

B.V. Nagesh v. Sreenivasa Murthy (2010) 13 SCC 530, which establishes that the first appeal is a valuable right involving a re-hearing on fact and law, requiring the appellate court to reflect a "conscious application of mind" through reasoned findings on all issues

The High Court observed that the first appellate court failed to follow the essential procedural mandates of Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC

The Court reasoned that without framing specific "points for determination," it is legally impossible for an appellate court to record a valid decision, assign proper reasons, or determine if the reversal of a trial court’s decree is justified

The High Court noted that the original suit had been pending since 2001 and was decided by the Trial Court after exhaustive appreciation of evidence; therefore, the first appellate court could not summarily remand the matter without a thorough adjudication on the merits as required by law

Furthermore, the Court pointed out a clerical/jurisdictional error where the judge used the criminal designation "Additional Sessions Judge" for a civil proceeding

The High Court allowed both appeals (FAFO No. 1127/2026 and 1128/2026) and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 05.02.2026. The first appellate court is directed to re-admit the appeals, frame specific points for determination, and decide the case afresh in strict compliance with the procedure under Order XLI Rules 30 and 31 of the CPC