1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.') is filed aggrieved against the decree and judgment dated 15-11-2024 in A.S.No. 4 of 2020 on the file of the Court of learned X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli (for short, 'the first appellate Court'), in confirming the decree and judgment dated 30-12-2019 in O.S.No. 145 of 2015 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli (for short, 'the trial Court').

2. The appellant herein is defendant and the respondent herein is plaintiff before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No. 145 of 2015 on the file of the trial Court with a prayer for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,95,998/- together with subsequent interest and for costs.

4. The trial Court decreed the suit with costs for an amount of Rs.7,95,898/- together with subsequent interest on Rs.1,75,000/- @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No. 4 of 2020 on the file of the first appellate Court. By decree and judgment dated 15-11-2024 in A.S.No. 4 of 2020, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal suit by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit.

6. Case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No. 145 of 2015, is as follows:

                  The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 21-12-2009 to discharge his debts and to meet his family expenses and executed a receipt on even date at Anakapalli in favour of the plaintiff. At the time of borrowing the amount, the defendant also agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. to the plaintiff as per market custom and usage. Subsequently, the defendant paid Rs.3,25,000/- to the plaintiff under four cheques. Thereafter, the defendant failed to discharge entire loan amount to the plaintiff though demanded by the plaintiff. On 08-01-2015, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the entire amount due under the afore-stated receipt dated 21-12-2009 immediately. Then, the defendant fraudulently and mischievously created a false story by issuing a registered legal notice dated 11-01-2015 with false allegations that the plaintiff requested the defendant to lend money for his family necessities and discharge of sundry debts and to meet the expenses of yearly death ceremony of his father and that the defendant lent the above said amount of Rs.3,25,000/- to the plaintiff through the afore stated cheques on respective dates with a condition that the plaintiff should repay the same with interest @ 12% p.a. at Anakapalli and that the defendant kept a blank non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.20/- dated 21-12-2009, a blank promissory note, a blank signed whitepaper and two cheques of H.D.F.C. Bank for a transaction with a third party and that it was not fructified. The plaintiff has no knowledge about C.C.No. 437 of 2013 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate at Anakapalli. The allegations mentioned in the legal notice dated 11-01-2015 issued by the defendant to the plaintiff are absolutely false and not correct.

7. The defendant filed written statement before the trial Court. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:

                  The defendant kept a blank non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.20/- dated 21-12-2009, a blank promissory note, a blank signed whitepaper and two cheques of HDFC Bank for a transaction with a third party and that it was not fructified and therefore left them within house and it turned out that the plaintiff committed theft and took away the said papers. The defendant is demanding the plaintiff to repay the amounts borrowed and while promising to do so, the plaintiff developed evil ideas to evade the amounts due to the defendant and that the plaintiff used the blank cheque and blank promissory note by forgery and got filed C.C.No. 437 of 2013 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate at Anakapalli through the plaintiff's henchmen and the same is pending and the plaintiff threatened to use the remaining stamp paper and blank cheque and whitepaper and to file some more cases against the defendant. The defendant demanded the plaintiff to repay the amounts borrowed Rs.3,25,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. The defendant got issued a registered legal notice dated 11-01-2015 to the plaintiff and the plaintiff received the said notice. No demands were made by the plaintiff for the alleged receipt and the plaintiff has no capacity to lend any amount. There is no agreement to pay interest at any time. The interest claimed in the suit is penal and usurious and not binding on the defendant. The suit is not maintainable in law.

8. On the basis of above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:

                  "(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

                  (ii) To what relief?"

9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B9 were marked.

10. The trial Court, after conclusion of trial, on hearing arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant filed the appeal suit in A.S.No. 4 of 2020 on the file of the first appellate Court.

11. The first appellate Court, after hearing arguments, dismissed the appeal suit filed by the appellant-defendant. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendant in O.S.No. 145 of 2015 filed the present second appeal before this Court.

12. On hearing both sides, at the time of admission of the second appeal on 27-11-2025, this Court framed the following substantial question of law:

                  "Whether the decree and judgment passed by the first appellate Court is in accordance with law?"

13. Heard Sri M.Aruna Sri Satya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant, and Sri Y.Sudhakar, learned counsel appearing for respondent-plaintiff.

14. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of C.P.C., the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence.

15. In the case of Bhagwan Sharma Vs. Bani Ghosh(AIR 1993 SC 398), the Apex Court held as follows:

                  "The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate Court which was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature."

16. In the case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar(AIR 1999 SC 471), the Apex Court held as follows:

                  "The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon admissible evidence or arrived at without evidence."

17. It is the specific case of the appellant herein that the judgment of the first appellate Court is not in accordance with law. As seen from the judgment of the first appellate Court, the first appellate Court has not even framed points for determination to decide the first appeal as required under XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C. How a regular first appeal has to be disposed of by the first appellate Court has been considered by the Apex Court in various decisions. Order XLI of C.P.C. deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various Rules, Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the first appellate Court shall state:

                  (a) the points for determination;

                  (b) the decision thereon;

                  (c) reasons for the decision; and

                  (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled.

18. In H.Siddiqui (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. A.Ramalingam(MANU/SC/0174/2011), the Apex Court held as follows:

                  "The provision under XLI, Rule 31 of C.P.C. provides guidelines for the appellate Court as to how the Court has to proceed and decide the case. The provisions should be read in such a way as to require that the various particulars mentioned therein should be taken into consideration. Thus, it must be evident from the judgment of the appellate Court that the Court has properly appreciated the facts/evidence, applied its mind and decided the case considering the material on record. It would amount to substantial compliance of the said provisions if the appellate Court's judgment is based on the independent assessment of the relevant evidence on all important aspect of the matter and the findings of the appellate Court are well founded and quite convincing. It is mandatory for the appellate Court to independently assess the evidence of the parties and consider the relevant points which arise for adjudication and the bearing of the evidence on those points. Being the final Court of fact, the first appellate Court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial Court judgment rather it must given reasons for its decision on each point independently to that of the trial Court. Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions."

19. It is a well defined legal principle that the rules of procedure are the hand made of justice. Hence, they shall not be narrowly construed. The procedural laws are designed to facilitate justice and interpreting them purely in a technical manner leaves no room for reasonable interpretation.

20. In the case at hand, the first appellate Court has not even framed the points for determination as required under Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C. As seen from the material available on record, a petition in I.A.No. 19 of 2023, under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C., is filed by the appellant to receive documents as additional evidence. The first appellate Court has not even decided the said application on merits and by leaving the said application, the first appellate Court pronounced the judgment in first appeal. In my view, the first appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner.

21. For the foregoing reasons, the decree and judgment passed by the first appellate Court is not legally sustainable and it is not in accordance with the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C. since the first appellate Court has not even framed relevant points for consideration viz.,

                  "(i) Whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled for interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of the alleged payment till the date of filing of suit in the absence of any contract to pay interest in between both the parties?

                  (ii) Whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for in the plaint?"

22. On a conspectus of pleadings and law, the decree and judgment passed by the first appellate Court is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Therefore, interest of justice requires that the matter has to be remanded back to the first appellate Court i.e. X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli, with a direction to frame relevant points for determination as stated supra and afford an opportunity to both the parties to submit hearing on the points to be framed in accordance with law and dispose of the first appeal on merits. For this purpose, this Court has set up the following points for determination in the first appeal to be decided by the first appellate Court:

                  "(i) Whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled for interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of the alleged payment till the date of filing of suit in the absence of any contract to pay interest in between both the parties?

                  (ii) Whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for in the plaint?"

23. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed and the decree and judgment dated 15-11-2024 in A.S.No. 4 of 2020 on the file of the Court of learned X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first appellate Court with a direction to afford an opportunity to both the parties to submit hearing on the points set up supra by this Court and to dispose of I.A.No. 19 of 2023, filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. to receive documents as additional evidence, as well as the first appeal on merits without being influenced by any of the findings recorded in its earlier judgment dated 15-11-2024. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt a copy of this judgment. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in consequence. There shall be no order as to costs.