In writing an appeal judgment, the same basic structure may be utilised. In an appeal judgment, the introductory sentences usually point out from which judgment or order the appeal has arisen.

Thereafter, a very brief narration of the pleadings and then very brief narration of the findings of the trial court are mentioned. The appellate judge thereafter formulates points, discusses the case and arrives at a conclusion. If the finding of the appellate judge are totally in agreement with the findings of the trial judge the appeal is dismissed.

If there is any variance between the findings of the trail court and the appellate court, the decree is suitably amended in terms of the judgment of the appellate court.

The rules such as the judgment should not be prolix or laconic, that the judgment should not be exhibition of the sentiments and feelings of the judge and the judgment should not contain matters which are not on record hold good so far as the appellate judgments are concerned also.


However, an appellate judge may have to explicitly state why he is not agreeing with the finding of the trial court, if the judgment is not a confirming judgment. It is the duty of the appellate court to point out where the trial court erred or in what respect the appellate court is disagreeing with the view of the trail court.

When a confirming judgment is pronounced by the appellate court, the appellate court need not explicitly state why it is agreeing with the finding of the trial court. That is why, essentially the appeal judgments are brief when they are confirming judgments.

When an appeal judgment is pronounced, the judge is not expected to pass remarks against the trial judge unless the trail judgment is totally perverse.

Very recently it was observed by the Supreme Court that the appellate courts including the High Courts shall refrain themselves from making disparaging remarks against the trial judgments lest the confidence of the people in the courts should be shattered.


Therefore, while a judge intends to pass a remark against the trail judge, the dictum in respect of strictures should be borne in mind. Merely because the trial judge did not take the same view as the appellate court has taken, it cannot be said that the view of the trial judge was perverse.

So long as it is possible for the court to reverse the order of the trial court without passing remarks against the trial judge, it is not desirable to comment upon the view of the trial judge. The appeal judgment should be of the same sobriety as that of the trial judgment and the sobriety does not warrant unnecessary remarks.

The appeal judgments even in civil miscellaneous appeals are far less complicated than the regular appeals.

Usually the point of controversy in a civil miscellaneous appeal would be very narrow. While the civil miscellaneous appeal shall be disposed of following the same rule as regular appeals, as the points of controversy are very few, the judgment in the civil miscellaneous appeal usually are short and brief.