w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ajit Ojha v/s Lallan Ojha


Company & Directors' Information:- AJIT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65190MH1948PTC006515

Company & Directors' Information:- LALLAN AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65910UP1986PTC008446

    S.A 441 Of 1999

    Decided On, 24 October 2005

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. J. N. BHATT

    For the Appearing Parties: Rakesh Kumar Ojha, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(1.) By this Second Appeal by invocation of the provision of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) the challenge made by the appellant- original plaintiff, has been against the judgment and decree dated 1-6-1999 and 16-6-1999, respectively, passed in Title Appeal No. 116 of 1992, whereby, the first appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed, on 30-6-1992. by the 7th Subordinate Judge. Bhojpur, Ara, in Title Suit No. 84 of 1985. by which the suit came to be decreed, on contest, with regard to properties shown in Schedules 'Kha' and 'Ga' of the suit (suit properties).

(2.) The present appellant is the original plaintiff who being aggrieved by the judg- ment and decree passed in Title Appeal has come up before this Court, inter alia, contending that the first appellate Court has committed grave legal wrong and serious error. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant-original plaintiff that there is a "substantial question of law."

(3.) According to the original plaintiff, the following is the "substantial question of law": "Whether the learned appellate Court has committed serious error of law in not formulating the point of consideration which arises on the finding of the trial Court."

(4.) At the admission stage, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has been extensively heard. The entire record is examined. The main grievance is that the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code have not been complied with and, therefore, there is a "substantial question of law". For that it has been alleged that the mandatory requirement in Clause (a) of Rule 31 of Order XLI of the Code has not been observed and considered. Prima facie, this may appear to be alluring but not acceptable in the light of the relevant proposition of law enunciated so far.

(5.) Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code reads as, hereunder :

"Contents, date and signature of Judgment- The judgment of the appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state- (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled; and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein."

(6.) It can very well be visualised from the aforesaid provision that the Parliament has provided as to how and what the judgment of the appellate Court shall include. It is true, even in Order XLI, Rule 31, Clause (a) of the Code provides that there should be points for determination, which is strongly relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant. However, the contention that merely because there is a failure to observe the provision of Clause (a) of the aforesaid Rule 31 of Order XLI of the Code, in not writing the judgment mentioning the points for determinations would vitiate the judgment, does not appear to be sustainable. The procedure for writing the judgment has been prescribed. Four aspects are emphasised in Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code.

(7.) Let it be mention that ordinarily, the points and the provisions made in Clauses (a) to (d) in Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code are required to be observed before writing and signing the judgment. However, the said provisions are procedural in nature. Apart from the issue as to whether they are mandatory or directory, it is not necessary to be gone into in this Second Appeal since there is substantial compliance and without any prejudice to anyone.

(8.) A simple issue which comes up for consideration at this juncture is as to whether non-mentioning of points precisely for determination in the judgment when the entire judgment includes all relevant points required to be taken for writing effective and effectual judgment could be said to be fatal ? Obviously, the answer would be in the negative.

(9.) Procedural law is designed and devised to advance cause of justice and not to retard it. The trial Court, ordinarily, is obliged to consider all the aspects enumerated in Clauses (a) to (d) of the aforesaid Rule. However, failure to specifically mention points for consideration and determination, would not vitiate the entire judgment when over all compliance in judgment is manifested. This proposition is very much enunciated and settled in catena of judicial pronouncements.

(10.) Referring such points in the judgment could not be said to be in any way affecting the merits of the decision. No procedural law could be interpreted, ordinarily, to thwart the substantive right of the party. In the case on hand, it is, also, noticed that the first appellate Court had taken into consideration all points as propounded in judgment, without specific mention of them. Therefore, the contention that the failure to mention the points for determination as provided in Clause (a) of Rule 31 of Order XLI of the Code, is fatal warranting interference with the impugned judgment and decree recorded by the first appellate Court in Title Appeal as a substantial question of law, cannot be accepted.

(11.) The scope of jurisdiction sweep of the Second Appeal in terms of the provision of Section 100 of the Code, is, also, very much settled and defined. With a view to exercise the power by the Second Appellate Court, it must be shown to the satisfaction of the Court dealing with such an appeal that there has been a "substantial question of law" which, of course, may not be of public importance but there must be an element of "substantial question of law" being involved which would enable the Court to decide the controversy.

(12.) Section 100 of the Code is being referred time and again. However, shortly, Section 100 of the Code deals with the provisions to conduct appeals from the appellate decrees. It reads here as under :

"Second appeal- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by the Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.

(2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.

(3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.

(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.

(5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case dees not involve such questions : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question."

(13.) It is, therefore, obvious and clear that unless and until a substantial question of law is shown to have been involved in the Second Appeal, there would not arise any question of interference by the Second Appellate Court against the order of the First Appellate Court and the judgment and decree recorded thereof. Simply because some part of the procedural law has not been specifically or precisely observed or fulfilled, 'ipso facto', would not lead to a justification for interference in exercise of powers in Sec ond Appeal in terms of the provision of Sec-1 tion 100 of the Code.

(14.) After having viewed from any perspective over all factual spectrum and the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31, Clauses (a) to (d) it would, clearly, indicate that in order to succeed in a Second Appeal it has to be shown to the satisfaction of the Court that there was involvemen

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

t of an element of "substantial question of law". (15.) The substantial question of law sought to be placed and branded, as such, in this appeal is not the substantial question of law. It has to be shown to the satisfaction of the Court. Nothing has been found or spelt out from the judgment warranting interference, in exercise of powers in Second Appeal by this Court in terms of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code with the result this Court is of the clear opinion that there is no substantial question of law in this Second Appeal. (16.) There is, also, no involvement of an element of any other substantial question of law to be considered for adjudication by the Second Appellate Court, in Section 100 of the Code with its proviso. (17.) This Second Appeal shall, accordingly, stand summarily dismissed at the admission stage itself. Appeal dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

15-07-2020 Sant Kumar Netam & Another Versus Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
12-06-2020 Ajit Barman Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
21-05-2020 Ajit Singh & Another Versus Ujjal Singh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
21-04-2020 For the Appellants: Amit Saxena (Senior Advocate) assisted by Abhishek Srivastava, Advocates. For the Respondent: Ajit Kumar, Punit Khare, Advocates. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-03-2020 Sankar Prasad Bose & Another Versus M/s. Shitala Construction Rep. by Ajit Panja & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
28-02-2020 Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-02-2020 Jayanta Ghosh & Others Versus Ajit Ghosh High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Ajit Sinh Sitaram Desai High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-02-2020 Ajit Singh Versus Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
27-01-2020 Ajit Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-01-2020 Ajit Singh Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Haryana & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-12-2019 Ajit Siroya Versus P.J. Gunasekaran (Deceased) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-12-2019 Sandeep V. Upadhyay & Another Versus Ajit Kumar Banerjee & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
02-12-2019 Ajit Rajendra Bhagwat & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-09-2019 Ajit Ravi Versus Cochin International Airport Ltd. High Court of Kerala
20-09-2019 Ajit @ Ajay Nanubhai Baria Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Kerala
22-08-2019 Lallan Yadav & Others Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-08-2019 S. Ajit Kumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Non-Corporate Circle-20(1), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2019 Ajit Kumar Chatterjee Versus Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-07-2019 Devendra K. Sardessai & Another Versus Ajit B. Mistri & Another Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panaji
09-07-2019 Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Limited & Others Versus Ajit Nain & Another Supreme Court of India
04-07-2019 M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Versus Anuradha Ajit Malgaonkar In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
01-07-2019 In The Matter of Letter Dated 30.11.2018 of Ajit Kumar Singh Based On New Report Versus The State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-06-2019 Ajit Shashikant Mhetre & Another Versus Leena Ajit Mhetre & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-06-2019 Avinash Karnik Versus Ajit Karnik & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
31-05-2019 Jagat Ram (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives Hakmi Devi & Others Versus Ajit Singh(Since Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives Subhash Kumar & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
23-04-2019 Sanjay Gupta & Others Versus Ajit Maurya, Director, Ford Hospital & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-04-2019 Master Ryan Adam Ajit, Represented by his Mother, T.K. Attabi, Ernakulam Versus The Union of India, Represented by The Joint Secretary (U.T.), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
04-04-2019 Ajit Kaur @ Surjit Kaur Versus Darshan Singh(Dead) Through Lrs. & Others Supreme Court of India
02-04-2019 State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi Versus Ajit Soni High Court of Delhi
01-04-2019 Ajit Kumar Baul Versus Minati Baul & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
22-03-2019 Ajit Ranjan Das Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Others High Court of Gauhati
07-03-2019 Ajit Shill Versus State of Assam High Court of Gauhati
05-03-2019 Ajit Pramanik Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
27-02-2019 Ajit Gogna Versus Jitender Gogna & Others High Court of Delhi
22-02-2019 Kodai Cars Private Limited, Represented by its Director, J. Ajit Christopher Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-12-2018 M/s. Avantika Elcon Private Limited Versus M/s. Ajit Industries Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
05-12-2018 Ajit Singh Shekhawat Versus State Of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan
22-11-2018 State of J&K Versus Ajit Singh & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
15-11-2018 U.P. Jal Nigam & Others Versus Ajit Singh Patel & Others Supreme Court of India
15-11-2018 Ajit Bhattacharjee & Others Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-10-2018 Ajit Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
23-10-2018 Ajit Kr. Bhuyan and Others V/S Debajit Das and Others. Supreme Court of India
26-09-2018 Archana Ajit Vaidya, Mumbai Versus Income Tax Officer - 21(1)(1) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai
12-09-2018 Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Ajit Singh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-08-2018 Nidhi Dhankar Versus Ajit Singh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
19-07-2018 The President, Mulund Gymkhana Versus Nagarkar Ajit Chandrakant & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-07-2018 Vivek Mathur & Another Versus Ajit Mardia High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-05-2018 Ajit Choubey Versus Shriji Promoters & Developers (P) Ltd. & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
16-05-2018 Colonel Ajit Singh Versus M/s. Sahara Prime City Limited Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lucknow
02-05-2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Versus S. Ajit Kumar Supreme Court of India
25-04-2018 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Rep. by Station Manager Versus Ajit Mondal West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-04-2018 Lallan @ Gaya Ratan Yadav & Another Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
10-04-2018 Khalifa Chain Sukh Versus Ajit Singh High Court of Delhi
30-01-2018 Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi Versus High Power Certification Scrutiny High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-01-2018 Ajit Nain Versus Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-01-2018 Ajit Raut Versus The State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
15-12-2017 Ajit & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-12-2017 M/s. Infini Impex, Rep.by its Partner D. Ajit Kumar Versus The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (now redesignated as Deputy Sales Tax Officer), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-11-2017 Ajit Singh Patel & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
17-10-2017 Ajit Babu Suroshi @ Suryavanshi Versus Maruthi Honappa Ambolkar & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
20-09-2017 Ajit Ch. Hazarika Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
21-08-2017 Vikki @ Ajit Ram & Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Chhattisgarh
01-08-2017 H. Fillunger & Company Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Ajit Arvind Marathe & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-07-2017 Ajit Singh & Others Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
10-05-2017 Ajit Kumar & Others Versus The State of Bihar & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
05-05-2017 S. Ajit Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. Versus Kawaljit Kaur @ Kawaldeep Kaur & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
04-05-2017 Ajit Santokchand Surana Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-05-2017 Usmangani Abdulkadar Karbhaari Versus Ajit Indravadan Thakkar & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
28-04-2017 Ajit Singh Versus State of Chhattisgarh Supreme Court of India
25-04-2017 Ajit Educational & Public Welfare Society Versus Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh
31-03-2017 Ajit Rameshkumar Patni & Another Versus Dr. Vijay Sarathi In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-03-2017 Sanjay Parlikar & Another Versus M/s. Ajit Scanning and Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
15-03-2017 Ajit Nain Versus Bengal Silver Spring Projects Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-02-2017 State of J. & K. Versus Ajit Raj Alias Kaka High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
19-12-2016 Joginder Ram Versus Ajit Singh & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
08-12-2016 Ajit Kumar Behera Versus State of Orissa & Others High Court of Orissa
08-12-2016 Sanjay Parlikar Versus Ajit Scanning And Diagnostic Centre P. Ltd National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai
01-12-2016 Late Ajit Singh Versus The Judge Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar & Others High Court of Rajasthan
19-10-2016 M/s. Sivasakthi Agencies Versus Ajit Construction, rep. by its Proprietor High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-10-2016 Ajit Kumar Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
03-10-2016 Ajit Singh Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-09-2016 Ajit Ranjan Biswas Versus The Union of India, rep. by the Secretary & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
09-09-2016 National Bank For Agricultural Versus Ajit Deogharia West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-07-2016 Ajit Sonbhau Gawade Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-07-2016 M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Ajit Kumar Chakraborty & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-07-2016 Ramarao @ Ajit & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Department of Public Works & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
01-07-2016 Ajit Kumar Paul Versus The State of Tripura, represented by Secretary cum Commissioner, School Education Department, Govt. of Tripura & Others High Court of Tripura
14-06-2016 Ajit Kumar Sarma Versus The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
06-06-2016 Putti Lal Lallan Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
31-05-2016 Ajit Singh & Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-05-2016 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Ghantaghar Chowk Bhiwani & Another Versus Ajit Singh Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula
17-05-2016 Atul Soodan & Others Versus Ajit Kumar & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
06-05-2016 Nisha Priya Bhatia Versus Ajit Seth & Others Supreme Court of India
26-04-2016 Mintesh wife of late Shri Ramesh Kumar & Others Versus Dr. Ajit Dahiya & Others Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula
15-04-2016 Ajit Kumar Sardar Versus Rupa Mondal alias Rupa Bachhar High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-03-2016 Union Bank of India, a body corporate Versus M/s. Ajit Fabrics through its proprietor Ajit Kumar & Others Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula
25-02-2016 Ajit Kumar Manna & Others Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-02-2016 Sardar Ajit Singh (Dead) through LRs Versus State of Punjab & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
09-02-2016 Ajit Kumar Mukherjee & Another Versus Bedanta Bhattacharya & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta