PARBHU NATH Vs. RAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri D.C. Jain, learned counsel for appellant Sri Tarun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record. Facts in brief of the present case are that initially plaintiff-appellant has filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 23 of 1984 (Prabhu Nath and others v. Ramjas and others), decreed by judgment and order dated 19.10.1981 passed my Munsic, 8th, Gonda, challenged by filing a Civil appeal No. 204 of 1981 (Ramjas v. Prabhunath), allowed by judgment and order dated 20.10.1982

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, the first and foremost question which is to be considered in the present case that if the appellate court reverse the judgment passed by the trial court then it is mandatory on the part of the said court to follow the provisions as provided under Order 41, Rule 31 CPC or not.

(3.) In the present case, the position which emerged out that the provisions as provided under Order 41, Rule 31 CPC has not been followed, in this regard, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of H. Siddiqui (Dead) By Lrs. v. A. Ramalingam, 2011 (4) SCC 240 , in para Nos. 21 and 22 held as under:-