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.
No comments:
Post a Comment