Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal has held that non-framing of points under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) does not invalidate an appellate judgment if there is substantial compliance and no specific issues are raised for reconsideration. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Nafees Ahmad & Anr. v. Soinuddin & Ors (2025). 

What was the Background of Nafees Ahmad & Anr. v. Soinuddin & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The case originated from a civil dispute between Nafees Ahmad & Another (Appellants) and Soinuddin & Others (Respondents). 
• The First Appellate Court had previously rendered a judgment in the matter, which was challenged before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Second Appeal No. 69/2008. 
• The High Court of Allahabad partly allowed the Second Appeal filed by the respondents (Soinuddin & Others) and remitted the matter back to the First Appellate Court. 
• The High Court's decision to remit was based on its finding that the First Appellate Court had failed to comply with the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically regarding the framing of points of determination. 
• Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment dated 4th September 2017, the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was subsequently granted and converted to Civil Appeal No. 5213/2025. 
• No specific offence was mentioned in the case as it pertained to a civil matter involving procedural compliance. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's view that Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC is mandatory in all circumstances and that non-compliance would automatically vitiate the entire judgment. 
• The Court adopted the principle established in G. Amalorpavam and Others v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai and Others (2006), holding that substantial compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC may be sufficient, determined on a case-by-case basis. 
• The Court observed that a procedural code must be reasonably interpreted to facilitate justice rather than frustrate it through overly technical constructions. 
• The Supreme Court held that provisions of Rule 31 should be reasonably construed to require the various particulars to be mentioned in the judgment only when the appellant has actually raised certain points for determination. 
• The Court noted that under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC, it is discretionary for the Appellate Court to refer to proceedings of the court below, and this reference is necessary only if considered essential. 
• The Supreme Court determined that if an appellant submits no grounds showing that the judgment under appeal is erroneous, the Appellate Court may decide the appeal without detailed reference to lower court proceedings. 
• The Court concluded that procedural requirements should not be interpreted so technically as to impede substantial justice. 
• No offence was discussed in the observations as the case concerned civil procedural law. 

What is Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC? 

About: 

• Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governs the procedure for appeals from original decrees passed by subordinate courts. 
• Rule 31 of Order XLI prescribes the mandatory form and content requirements for judgments delivered by appellate courts. 
• As per Rule 31, the judgment of an appellate court must be in writing and must articulate the following elements:  
  • The points for determination in the appeal; 
  • The decision on each identified point;  
  • The reasoning underlying the decision; and  
  • The specific relief granted to the appellant where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied. 
• The judgment must be signed and dated by the judge or judges concurring in the decision at the time of its pronouncement. 
• The purpose of these procedural requirements is to ensure transparency, clarity and reasoned adjudication in appellate proceedings. 
• Rule 31 serves to structure appellate judgments in a manner that enables parties and reviewing courts to understand the basis of the appellate decision. 
• The requirement to state points for determination ensures that the appellate court addresses the specific issues raised by the appellant challenging the original decree. 
• The requirement to provide reasons for decisions promotes judicial accountability and facilitates further appellate review if necessary. 
• While Rule 31 appears mandatory in its language, judicial interpretation has established that substantial compliance may be sufficient depending on the circumstances of each case. 
• The Supreme Court has held that Rule 31 requirements apply primarily when specific issues are raised by the appellant for determination, rather than in cases where no specific grounds challenging the lower court judgment are advanced. 

Case Laws 

• Mt. Fakrunisa v. Moulvi Izarus (1921):  
  • Privy Council case establishing that appellants must show reason why the judgment appealed from should be disturbed. 
• Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Thakur Kalyan Singh and Anr. (1963): 
  • Three-Judge Bench decision supporting the principle that it is the appellant's duty to show the judgment under appeal is erroneous, and only then would the appellate court call upon the respondent to reply. 
  • Also referenced to support that if the appellant submits nothing for consideration, the Appellate Court can decide without reference to proceedings below. 
• Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, Bhurey Lal Baya (1955):  
  • Court emphasizes that procedural provisions should not be interpreted too technically, as procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends.