Supreme Court on First Appeals under Section 96 of CPC

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Today, I will again talk about the case of V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K. (Dead) by Lr. & Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 896, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia discussed the powers of the First Appellate Court as enshrined under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

 

The facts of the case are not necessary for the purposes of this show and hence, the same are not being discussed here. After listening to this show, the audience would know about the contours of powers of the first appellate court under S. 96 of CPC and the grounds on which the first appellate court could upset the findings or decisions of the trial court.

 

SECTION 96 OF CPC

 

At the outset, it is made clear that S. 96 of CPC deals with the powers of the appellate court of first instance and not the second appellate court. CPC also provides for second appeals under S. 100. To know more about second appeals, please visit our earlier shows, the links for which are provided in the description below.

To know about Second Appeals, please visit Supreme Court on Second Appeals and S. 103 of CPC and Second Appeals

 

Basically, Section 96 of CPC provides for appeals from original decrees. It states that unless otherwise provided, an appeal shall lie from every original decree to the Court that is empowered to hear such appeals.

 

We often hear that the appellate courts can reverse the findings of the trial court both on fact as well as on law. What does it mean? Does it mean that unbridled power has been vested with the first appellate court to overrule the decisions of the trial court or are there some contours within which the appellate court should exercise its power. In order to understand this conundrum, let us go through the pertinent observations by the Court.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court cited the case of Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi, (2008) 10 SCC 497, wherein it was observed that an appeal is a continuation of a suit. Therefore, an Appeal is in essence a re-hearing of the main matter and “the appellate court can reappraise, re-appreciate and review the entire evidence - oral as well as documentary and can come to its own conclusion.”

 

Secondly, the Court observed that “the first appellate court while exercising power under Section 96 can re-do the exercise of the trial court. However, such a power is expected to be exercised with caution.”

 

Thirdly, the Court cautioned that “when a finding of fact has been recorded by the trial court mainly on appreciation of oral evidence, it should not be lightly disturbed unless the approach of the trial court in appraisal of evidence is erroneous, contrary to well-established principles of law or unreasonable.”

 

Fourthly, the Court explained that “mere substitution of views by the appellate court, without discussing the findings of the trial court, is not permissible. If two views are possible, it would only be appropriate to go with the view expressed by the trial court. While adopting reasoning in support of its findings, the appellate court is not expected to go on moral grounds alone.”

 

Fifthly, the Court also cited the landmark case of Coghlan v. Cumberland, [1898] 1 Ch. 704 (CA), wherein it was emphasized that “it is often very difficult to estimate correctly the relative credibility of witnesses from written depositions and when the question arises which witness is to be believed, … that question turns on manner and demeanour” of the witnesses. In such situations, “the Court of Appeal always is, and must be, guided by the impression made on the Judge who saw the witnesses.”

 

Sixthly, the Court also pointed out that even when an appeal lies on facts, the Appellate Court does have the power to “reverse a finding of fact arrived at by the trial Judge”. Such power should be exercised in cases where there is some feature in the oral evidence of a witness “which has escaped the trial Judge's notice or there is a sufficient balance of improbability to displace his opinion as to where the credibility lies”.

 

And lastly, the Court concluded by providing the three requisites that “should normally be present before an appellate court reverses a finding of the trial court.” They are: -

 

a. The Appellate Court should apply its mind to reasons given by the trial court.

b. The Appellate Court sees no advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses; and

c. The Appellate Court “records cogent and convincing reasons for disagreeing with the trial court.”

 

Those were the observations by the Court. So, what are my concluding remarks.

 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

 

The law relating to appeals in civil parlance is well-settled now. But technicalities in civil suits are so abundant that the appellate courts often get confused as to the extent of powers that is vested in them. In the present case, the Court succinctly explained the contours of powers of the first appellate court within which it functions.