Smti. Padmawati Hazarika @ Padmavati Hazarika Vs Navajit Bora

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010139122026

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:9493

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : CRP(IO)/302/2026

¶6

SMTI. PADMAWATI HAZARIKA @ PADMAVATI HAZARIKA WIFE OF LATE JOGEN BORA, RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 13, CHANDAN NAGAR, P.O.- GOLAGHAT, DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM,

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

NAVAJIT BORA

¶9

SON OF LATE JOGEN BORA, RESIDENT OF JUGONIA GAON, MOUZA - GURJUGONIA, P.O.- GANAKPUKHURI, DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN785622

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M DUTTA, D KHERKATARY

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER

¶14

13.07.2026

¶15

Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

2. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.02.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Golaghat (trial court hereinafter), in Misc. (j) Case No. 05/2026, in connection with Title Suit No. 12/2017.

¶17

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 23.02.2026, the

¶18

Page No.# 2/4

¶19

learned trial court had dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner, under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC and also dismissed the accompanying application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, on the ground that the court become ‘ functus officio’ after disposal of the suit without adjudicating either of the application on its merit.

¶20

4. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the defendant in the Title Suit No. 12/2017 and the said title suit was decreed vide judgment dated 06.09.2025 and decree dated 09.09.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a petition, being petition No. 479/2026, under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC for reviewing the judgment dated 06.09.2025 and decree dated 09.09.2025, passed in Title Suit No. 12/2017 before the learned Trial Court. And since there was delay of 87 days in preferring the review petition, the petitioner herein had filed the petition No. 478/2026, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the CPC, for condonation of said delay. Upon the said petitions, the learned trial court had registered Misc. (J) Case No. 05/2026 and Misc. (J) Case No. 06/2026 and thereafter, dismissed both the petitions, vide order dated 23.02.2026, on the ground that the court had become ‘ functus officio’ after disposal of the suit.

¶21

5. Mr. Dutta further submits that the right to review is provided under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC and it is a statutory right, but, the learned trial court, without considering the said aspect and without hearing the matter on merit, had dismissed the same on the ground that the court had become ‘ functus officio’ after disposal of the suit and as such, the impugned orders are illegal and arbitrary and therefore, Mr. Dutta has contended to interfere with the same and to remand the matter to the learned

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

Trial Court for consideration a fresh.

¶24

6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also gone through the impugned orders, dated 23.02.2026, in Misc. (J) Case No. 05/2026 and Misc. (J) Case No. 06/2026. And this Court finds substance in the submission of Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

7. It is well settled that right to review is indeed a statutory right, provided under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The review mechanism is an exception to the rule that once the court has pronounced the judgment and signed it, it has no jurisdiction to alter it and it ceases to have control over it. It is an exception to the ‘ functus officio’ . The review process allows the court to rectify the error and ensure that justice is achieved. Review allows for re-examination of the case in the same court and the said remedy is under specific condition and is not entitled to provide an opportunity to re-litigate the case.

¶26

8. In the instant case, having dismissed the application, the learned trial court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction conferred by the statute, i.e. by the Code of Civil Procedure, under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule1. The principle of ‘ functus officio’, which the learned trial court had applied in dismissing the petitions, to the considered opinion of this Court, is illegal and arbitrary and it fails to withstand the legal scrutiny. And in that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned orders dated 23.02.2026, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 05/2026 and Misc. (J) 06/2026.

¶27

9. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 23.02.2026, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 05/2026 and Misc. (J) 06/2026, stands set aside and quashed. The

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

matter stands remanded to the learned trial court with a direction to restore both the Misc. cases to file and thereafter, to proceed first to hear the application No. 478/2026, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the CPC and to pass necessary order and in the event of condonation of delay, the learned trial court shall proceed to hear the petition No. 479/2026, filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC on merit.

¶30

10. In terms of above, this CRP(IO) stands disposed of.

¶31

Comparing Assistant

¶32

JUDGE

Smti. Padmawati Hazarika @ Padmavati Hazarika v. Navajit Bora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti. Padmawati Hazarika @ Padmavati Hazarika v. Navajit Bora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Aizawl Vs Sh Roliana and Anr.

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Guwahati Vs Sh C.Lalzika and 4 Ors.

M/S New India Assurance Co. Vs Sh Roliana and Anr.

Hafijur Rahman Vs the Regional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt. Susila Bala Ray and 6 Ors. Vs Karuna Ray and 5 Ors.

Md. Sariful Islam and 3 Ors. Vs Md. Ataur Rahman and 7 Ors.