It cannot be disputed that the Appellate Court has jurisdiction/power to reverse, affirm or modify the findings and the judgment of the Trial Court but while reversing or modifying the judgment of a Trial Court on facts or law the Appellate Court should not deal with the judgment of the Trial Judge in a short cut method, bereft of all reasoning.

The Apex Court has consistently held that it is the duty of the Appellate Court to reflect in its judgment, conscious application of mind on the findings recorded supported by reasons, on all issues dealt with, as well as the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties during hearing/arguments of the Appellate Court. However, when the Appellate Court affirms the judgment of a Trial Court, the reasoning need not to be elaborate although reappreciation of the evidence and reconsideration of the judgment of the Trial Court are necessary concomitants but while reversing a judgment of a Trial Court, the Appellate Court must be more conscious of its duty in assigning the reasons for doing so.

It is pertinent that the right to appeal is a creature of statute. The right to file an appeal by an unsuccessful party assailing the judgment of the Original Court is a valuable right and hence a duty is cast on the Appellate Court to adjudicate a first appeal both on questions of fact and applicable law. It is therefore obligatory that the reappreciation of evidence in light of the contentions raised by the respective parties and the applicable judicial precedents have to be conscientiously applied & dealt with.

In would be trite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (deceased) by LRs (2001) 3 SCC 179, wherein it has been held that while writing a judgment of reversal, an Appellate Court must adhere to the two basic principles. Firstly, the findings of facts based on conflicting evidence arrived at by the Trial Court must weigh with the Appellate Court. However, if on an appraisal of the evidence, it is found that the judgment of the Trial Court suffers from a material irregularity or is based on inadmissible evidence or on conjectures and surmises, the Appellate Court is entitled to interfere with the finding of fact. Secondly, while reversing a finding of fact, it is necessary that the Appellate Court assigns its own reasons for doing so.

It is apposite to refer to B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy (2010) 13 SCC 530 wherein the Apex Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court reiterated thus:

3. How the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate court/High Court has been considered by this Court in various decisions. Order 41 CPC has
been considered by this Court in various decisions. Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state:

1. The points for determination;
2. The decision thereon;
3. The reasons for the decision; and
4. Where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled.

4. the appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings.

The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide Santosh Hazari v.Purushottam Tiwari - (2001) 3 SCC 179 at p.188 para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram - (2001) 4 SCC 756 at p.758, para 5.

The Apex Court in Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar - (2015) 1 SCC 391, held that in a first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the scope and powers conferred on the First Appellate Court are delineated in Order XLI of the Code and grounds raised in the appeal, reappreciation of evidence adduced by the parties and application of the relevant legal principles and decided case law have to be considered while deciding whether the judgment of the Trial Court can be sustained or not.

The Apex Court in the case of H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (2005) 10 SCC 243 reiterated thus:

3. The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title.

The Apex Court in Jagannath v. Arulappa & Anr., (2005) 12 SCC 303, while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 observed thus:

2. A court of first appeal can reappreciate the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion……...

Thus, it is Res Integra that the appellate order should be detailed, elaborate & well reasoned else it cannot be legally sustained. Any Appellate order which is cryptic and does not deal intricately with the reasoning and the law dealt by the Trial Court, the same is bad in law and liable to be set aside. These declarations of law are equally applicable to cases involving Income Tax, GST, Revenue laws & Civil Laws.

Written By: Inder Chand Jain
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 8279945021