Suresh Kumar Jalan Vs Santi Devi Jalan @ Agarwal and 3 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010119282024

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Review.Pet./102/2024

¶5

SURESH KUMAR JALAN

¶6

S/O LATE LAXMINARAYAN JALAN, RESIDENT OF HIJUGURI, C/O M/S M.P JALAN, TINSUKIA . PO AND PS HIJUGURI, DIST TINSUKIA, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SANTI DEVI JALAN @ AGARWAL AND 3 ORS W/O LATE LAXMINARAYAN JALAN @ AGARWAL, C/O DR. PANKAJ GOEL, RESIENT OF PARBOTIA FEEDER ROAD, INFRONT OF A.R WINE PO, PS AND DIST TINSUKIA, ASSAM

¶9

2:SRI RAMESH KUMAR JALAN S/O LATE LAXMINARAYAN JALAN

¶10

RESIDENT OF HIJUGURI C/O M/S M.P JALAN TINSUKIA PO AND PS HIJUGURI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM

¶11

3:SRI SANJOY KUMAR JALAN S/O LATE LAXMINARAYAN JALAN

¶12

RESIDENT OF HIJUGURI C/O M/S M.P JALAN TINSUKIA PO AND PS HIJUGURI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM

¶13

4:SMTI AMITA GOEL

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

D/O LATE LAXMINARAYAN JALAN W/O DR. PANKAJ GOEL RESIENT OF PARBOTIA FEEDER ROAD INFRONT OF A.R WINE PO PS AND DIST TINSUKIA ASSA

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D M NATH, MR G RAHUL

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S HAZARIKA (R-3, R2), MS A M DCOSTA (R2),MS P THAPA (R-1,4),MR S DUTTA (R-1,4),P LHAMU (R-3, R2),MR. P BORAH (R-3, R2),MR B KAUSHIK (R-3, R2),K BHARALI (R-3, R2)

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

06.11.2025

¶21

Heard Mr. G. Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik as well as Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶22

This is an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for reviewing the order dated 17.05.2024 passed by this Court in CRP (I/O) No. 163/2024.

¶23

By the order dated 17.05.2024, this court directed the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Tinsukia to dispose of Misc. (J) Case No. 23/2024 within a period of 2 (two) months. This court also directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the Schedule-A (8) property. It was clarified by the court that no construction work shall be undertaken in the suit property till disposal of the injunction petition before the court of Tinsukia.

¶24

By filing the review petition, Mr. Rahul, inter alia, pleaded that the Schedule-A(8) property has a petrol pump under license from an Oil company and the Oil company has been periodically issuing some instructions to construct some structures in the petrol pump. According to the learned counsel, if the instructions of the Oil company are not complied with, the license to the petrol pump shall be cancelled and it will cause a serious loss to the petitioner.

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

Mr. Rahul has submitted that the plaintiffs of the suit prayed for partition of a property and the Schedule-A(8) property is a part of it. If the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, this property shall also be partitioned.

¶27

The review petitioner has claimed that some orders passed by the trial court, more particularly, the orders dated 18.05.2024, 24.06.2025 and the order dated 01.11.2025 were not brought to the notice of the court and the opposite party of this review petition had committed fraud and managed to procure the order dated 17.05.2024 in CRP (I/O) No. 163/2024.

¶28

I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both the sides.

¶29

Order 47 Rule 1 lays down that review of a judgment or an order could be sought: (a) from the discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant; (b) such important matter or evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was passed or order made; and (c) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason.

¶30

Now, the question arises whether the powers of review provided by Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC can be applied in the present case. Order 47, Rule 1 reads as under –

¶31

Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

¶32

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which

¶33

no appeal has been preferred,

¶34

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

¶35

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,

¶36

and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

¶37

Page No.# 4/5

¶38

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree on order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for there view.

¶39

[Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]

¶40

In Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr. v. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors. [(2005) 4 SCC 741], it has been held that the Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason.

¶41

In Inderchand Jain (D) Th.Lrs. vs Motilal (D) Th.Lrs [ (2009)14 SCC 663 ). the Supreme Court reiterated the principles of review in this way –

¶42

(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C.

¶43

(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may be conceivable be two opinions.

¶44

(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.

¶45

(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an Advocate.

¶46

(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine `actus curiae neminem gravabit'."

¶47

The phrase ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit' means an act of the Court shall prejudice no one. In Inderchand Jain (D) Th. Lrs. vs Motilal (D) Th.Lrs (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a mistake on the part of the court may also call for a review of the order.

¶48

Coming back to the case in hand, this court is of the opinion that the order dated 17.05.2024 was passed after consideration of all the materials available on record. There was no mistake on the part of the court to allow a review petition.

¶49

However, this court has decided to agree with Mr. Rahul that construction work relating to the petrol pump must be given due considerations. Therefore, the petitioners shall be at liberty to undertake construction works relating to the petrol pump that shall be pursuant

¶50

Page No.# 5/5

¶51

only to the instructions given by the Oil company. No other constructions shall be undertaken till disposal of the injunction petition before the trial court.

¶52

With the aforesaid directions, the review petitions stands disposed of.

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

Comparing Assistant

Suresh Kumar Jalan v. Santi Devi Jalan @ Agarwal and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Jalan v. Santi Devi Jalan @ Agarwal and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smti. Luna Kalita Vs Smti. Kiran Baruah @ Kiran Baruah Baishya

M/S Goel Coir Foam (India) Private Limited and 3 Ors. Vs Babu Boro

Bhupendra Chandra Kalita Vs Smti. Alaka Kalita

Sahil Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Md. Kamran Ali Vs Union of India

Thanuram Konwar and 9 Ors. Vs on the Death of Sri Kamal Chandra Pator, President, Dahali Makaria Bhogdobha Habi Gram Sabha His L