Nafees Ahmad v. Soinuddin

Judgment: https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/pxhg/
Citation: 2025 INSC 520
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5213/2025 (@Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2511/2018)
Date of Decision: 16th April 2025
Case Name: Nafees Ahmad & Anr. v. Soinuddin & Ors.

Civil Procedure – Order 41 Rule 31 CPC – Mandatory Nature – Substantial Compliance – Appellate Court Judgment – Requirement to Frame Points for Determination – Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Judgment if Substantially Compliant – Appeal Allowed – High Court Judgment Set Aside.

Also Read : Law Note: Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Facts

The appeal arose from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dated 4th September 2017, which partly allowed a Second Appeal (No. 69/2008) filed by the respondents. The High Court remitted the case to the First Appellate Court, holding that the First Appellate Court failed to comply with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by not framing points for determination, rendering the judgment void. The appellants challenged this decision in the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, requiring the Appellate Court to frame points for determination, are mandatory, and whether non-compliance vitiates the entire judgment.

Holding

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is not strictly mandatory. Non-compliance does not automatically vitiate a judgment if there is substantial compliance with the provision.

Reasoning

• The Court relied on G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai (2006) 3 SCC 224, which held that substantial compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is sufficient, and non-compliance does not necessarily render a judgment void.
• The Court referred to Mt. Fakrunisa v. Moulvi Izarus (AIR 1921 PC 55) and Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Thakur Kalyan Singh (1963) 2 SCR 733, emphasizing that the appellant must demonstrate errors in the judgment under appeal. If no points are raised, the Appellate Court is not obligated to frame points for determination.
• Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal (1955) 2 SCR 1 was cited to advocate for a reasonable, non-technical interpretation of procedural rules to facilitate justice.
• The Court also analyzed Order 41 Rule 30 CPC, noting that the Appellate Court has discretion to refer to proceedings and is not required to frame points if the appellant raises no substantial issues.
• The High Court’s view that non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC wholly voids a judgment was deemed incorrect.

Disposition

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and disposed of any pending applications.

Key Precedents Cited

1. G. Amalorpavam And Others v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, (2006) 3 SCC 224
   • The Supreme Court held that whether there has been compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC should be assessed based on the nature of the judgment in each case. Non-compliance with the provisions, by itself, does not render a judgment wholly void if there has been substantial compliance. This precedent was pivotal in the Court’s reasoning that strict adherence to Order 41 Rule 31 is not mandatory, and substantial compliance suffices.
2. Mt. Fakrunisa v. Moulvi Izarus, AIR 1921 PC 55
   • The Privy Council observed that in every appeal, the appellant must demonstrate reasons why the judgment under appeal should be disturbed. There must be a balance in the appellant’s favor, considering all circumstances, to justify altering the judgment. The Supreme Court used this to underscore that the burden lies on the appellant to raise specific points for determination, and the Appellate Court is not obligated to frame points if none are raised.
3. Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Thakur Kalyan Singh, (1963) 2 SCR 733
   • A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, endorsing the Privy Council’s view in Mt. Fakrunisa, held that it is the appellant’s duty to show that the judgment under appeal is erroneous for specific reasons. Only after the appellant establishes this does the Appellate Court require the respondent to respond, and only then must the judgment fully comply with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. The Court also referenced this case to interpret Order 41 Rule 30 CPC, noting that the Appellate Court may decide an appeal without referring to lower court proceedings if the appellant raises no substantial issues.
4. Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, Bhurey Lal Baya, (1955) 2 SCR 1
   • The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural codes, such as the CPC, are designed to facilitate justice and further its ends. A overly technical construction of procedural provisions that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity should be avoided, provided justice is done to both parties. This precedent supported the Court’s approach to interpret Order 41 Rule 31 reasonably, avoiding a rigid application that could frustrate justice.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. What was the primary issue in Nafees Ahmad & Anr. v. Soinuddin & Ors. (2025 INSC 520)?
   a) Whether the First Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction
   b) Whether Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is mandatory and its non-compliance vitiates a judgment
   c) Whether the High Court lacked authority to remit the case
   d) Whether the appellants failed to file a valid appeal
   Answer: b) Whether Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is mandatory and its non-compliance vitiates a judgment
2. What was the Supreme Court’s holding regarding Order 41 Rule 31 CPC?
   a) It is mandatory, and non-compliance voids the judgment
   b) It is directory, and substantial compliance is sufficient
   c) It applies only to the High Court
   d) It is irrelevant to appellate judgments
   Answer: b) It is directory, and substantial compliance is sufficient
3. Which precedent was primarily relied upon to determine that substantial compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is sufficient?
   a) Mt. Fakrunisa v. Moulvi Izarus
   b) G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai
   c) Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Thakur Kalyan Singh
   d) Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal
   Answer: b) G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai
4. According to the Supreme Court, when is an Appellate Court required to frame points for determination under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC?
   a) In every appeal, regardless of issues raised
   b) Only when the respondent requests it
   c) Only when the appellant raises specific points for determination
   d) Only in cases involving substantial questions of law
   Answer: c) Only when the appellant raises specific points for determination
5. What was the outcome of the appeal in Nafees Ahmad & Anr. v. Soinuddin & Ors.?
   a) The High Court’s judgment was upheld
   b) The case was remitted to the First Appellate Court
   c) The appeal was dismissed
   d) The High Court’s judgment was set aside
   Answer: d) The High Court’s judgment was set aside

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What was the main issue addressed by the Supreme Court in Nafees Ahmad & Anr. v. Soinuddin & Ors. (2025 INSC 520)?
   The Supreme Court addressed whether the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, which require an Appellate Court to frame points for determination in its judgment, are mandatory, and whether non-compliance with this rule renders the judgment void.
2. What does Order 41 Rule 31 CPC require from an Appellate Court?
   Order 41 Rule 31 CPC mandates that an Appellate Court’s judgment be in writing and include: (a) the points for determination, (b) the decision on those points, (c) the reasons for the decision, and (d) the relief to which the appellant is entitled if the decree is reversed or varied. The judgment must also be signed and dated by the judge(s).
3. What was the High Court’s reasoning for remitting the case to the First Appellate Court?
   The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) held that the First Appellate Court’s failure to frame points for determination as required by Order 41 Rule 31 CPC was a violation of a mandatory provision, rendering the judgment void. Consequently, it remitted the case for reconsideration.
4. Why did the Supreme Court disagree with the High Court’s decision?
   The Supreme Court disagreed because it found that Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is not strictly mandatory. Relying on precedents like G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai (2006) 3 SCC 224, the Court held that substantial compliance with the rule is sufficient, and non-compliance does not automatically vitiate a judgment, especially if the appellant raises no specific points for determination.
5. Which precedents were cited by the Supreme Court to support its decision?
   The Court cited:
   • G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai (2006) 3 SCC 224: Substantial compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is sufficient.
   • Mt. Fakrunisa v. Moulvi Izarus (AIR 1921 PC 55): Appellants must show reasons to disturb the judgment.
   • Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Thakur Kalyan Singh (1963) 2 SCR 733: The appellant’s duty is to demonstrate errors in the judgment.
   • Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal (1955) 2 SCR 1: Procedural rules should be interpreted reasonably to facilitate justice.
6. What role did Order 41 Rule 30 CPC play in the Supreme Court’s reasoning?
   The Court referred to Order 41 Rule 30 CPC to clarify that an Appellate Court has discretion to refer to lower court proceedings and is not obligated to do so if the appellant raises no substantial issues. This supported the view that framing points for determination is not mandatory when no points are raised.
7. What was the final outcome of the case?
   The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and disposed of any pending applications, holding that the High Court erred in deeming the First Appellate Court’s judgment void for non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.
8. What broader principle did the Supreme Court emphasize in its judgment?
   The Court emphasized that procedural rules, like those in the CPC, should be construed reasonably to facilitate justice rather than being applied in an overly technical manner that could frustrate the ends of justice.