Scope & Ambit of First Appeal : The Law

Justice R.M. Lodha
Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court in State Bank of India & Anr. v. M/s Emmsons International Ltd. & Ors. has reiterated the scope and ambit of a First Appeal, which involves re-appreciation of facts as well as law. While highlighting the broad principles evolved by previous judgments, the Supreme Court held as under;

20. Having regard to the controversy set up by the parties in the course of trial, in our view, it cannot be said that issue no. 5 is immaterial or finding of the trial court on that issue is inconsequential. The High Court was hearing the first appeal and, as a first appellate court it ought to have considered and addressed itself to all the issues of fact and law before setting aside the judgment of the trial court. The judgment of the High Court suffers from a grave error as it ignored and overlooked the finding of the trial court on issue no. 5 that the seller accepted the encashment of bill and document on collection basis. The High Court was required to address itself to issue no. 5 which surely had bearing on the final outcome of the case.

21. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs., this Court held (at pages 188-189) as under :

........The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. 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. ... while reversing a finding of fact the appellate court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it......;

22. The above view has been followed by a 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Madhukar and Others v. Sangram and Others, wherein it was reiterated that sitting as a court of first appeal, it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings.

23. In the case of H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (Dead) by LRs., this Court (at pages 243-244) stated as under :

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..........

24. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa and Another while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court (at pages 303-304) observed as follows:

2. A court of first appeal can reappreciate the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion. In the present case, we find that the High Court has not adverted to many of the findings which had been recorded by the trial court. For instance, while dismissing the suits filed by the respondents, the trial court had recorded a finding on Issue 5 that the defendant-appellant had taken actual possession of the suit properties in Execution Petition No. 137 of 1980 arising out of OS No. 224 of 1978. Without reversing this finding, the High Court simply allowed the appeals and decreed the suits filed by the plaintiff-respondents in toto. Similarly, there are other issues on which findings recorded by the trial court have not been set aside by the High Court. The points involved in the appeals before the High Court required a deeper consideration of the findings recorded by the trial court as well as the evidence and the pleadings on record.

25. The decided cases of this Court in Jagannath and H.K.N. Swami were noticed by this Court in a later decision in the case of Chinthamani Ammal v. Nandagopal Gounder and Another.

26. In our view, the High Court failed to follow the fundamental rule governing the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 that where the first appellate court reverses the judgment of the trial court, it is required to consider all the issues of law and fact. This flaw vitiates the entire judgment of the High Court. The judgment of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained.