Amin Ali Vs Abdul Jalil Laskar

ABDUL JALIL LASKAR S/O LATE MD. SAFIQUR RAHMAN LASKAR VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I P.O.-RONGPUR SOUTH P.S.-LALA DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788163 VERSUS AMIN ALI AND 8 ORS. S/O LT. INCHAN ALI VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I P.S.-LALA DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788163 2:MD. ABUL HUSSAIN LASKAR S/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR ORIGINAL R/O VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM P/R/A VILL-BOLDABALDI (DARAPUR) P.S.-KATLICHERRA DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788161 3:MD. MAJBUL HUSSAIN LASKAR S/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR ORIGINAL R/O VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM P/R/A VILL-BOLDABALDI (DARAPUR) P.S.-KATLICHERRA DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788161

¶16

Page No.# 3/10

¶17

4:MD. SABUL HUSSAIN LASKAR S/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR ORIGINAL R/O VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM P/R/A VILL-BOLDABALDI (DARAPUR) P.S.-KATLICHERRA DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788161 5:MUSSTT. AFIYA BEGUM LASKAR D/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR ORIGINAL R/O VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM P/R/A VILL-BOLDABALDI (DARAPUR) P.S.-KATLICHERRA DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788161 6:MUSSTT. SUFIARA BEGUM LASKAR D/O ABDUL KADIR LASKAR ORIGINAL R/O VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM P/R/A VILL-BOLDABALDI (DARAPUR) P.S.-KATLICHERRA DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788161 7:STRIKE OUT. VIDE HON'BLE COURT'S ORDER DTD. 02/09/2024 PASSED IN REVIEW PETN.NO.90/2020. 8:MUSSTT. BILKIS SIDDIKA BEGUM LASKAR D/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR ORIGINAL R/O VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM P/R/A VILL-BOLDABALDI (DARAPUR) P.S.-KATLICHERRA DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788161

¶18

Page No.# 4/10

¶19

9:MUSSTT. AFLATUN NESSA LASKAR W/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR ORIGINAL R/O VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM P/R/A VILL-BOLDABALDI (DARAPUR) P.S.-KATLICHERRA DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788161 -----------Advocate for : MR M J QUADIR Advocate for : MS F AHMED appearing for AMIN ALI AND 8 ORS.

¶20

Linked Case : RSA/150/2017

¶21

AMIN ALI S/O LATE INCHAN ALI VILL. MOHMMODPUR PT-I P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI

¶22

VERSUS

¶23

MD ABDUL JALIL LASKAR and 9 ORS S/O MD. SAFIQUR RAHMAN LASKAR VILL. MOHMMADPUR PT-I P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI PIN CODE 788163

¶24

2:MD. ABUL HUSSAIN LASKAR

¶25

S/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR

¶26

3:MD. MAJBUL HUSSAIN LASKAR

¶27

4:MD. SABUL HUSSAIN LASKAR S/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR

¶28

5:MUSSTT. AFIA BEGUM LASKAR D/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR

¶29

6:MUSTT. SUFIARA BEGUM LASKAR

¶30

Page No.# 5/10

¶31

D/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR

¶32

7:MUSSTT. KHALIDA BEGUM LASKAR D/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR 8:MUSSTT. BILKIS SIDDIKA BEGUM LASKAR D/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR 9:MUSSTT. ALFATUN NESSA LASKAR W/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR ALL ARE ORIGINAL RESIDED VILL. MOHMMADPUR PT-I P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI AND PRESENTLY RESIDED OF VILL. BOLDABALDI DARAPUR P.S. KATLICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI PIN 788161 -----------Advocate for : MS.F AHMED Advocate for : MR.B BANERJEE appearing for MD ABDUL JALIL LASKAR and 9 ORS

¶33

Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/3799/2025

¶34

ABDUL JALIL LASKAR SON OF LATE MD. SHAFIQUR RAHMAN LASKAR MVILL- MOHAMMODPUR PART-I P.O. RONGPUR SOUTH P.S. LALA DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM-788163. VERSUS AMIN ALI S/O LATE INCHAN ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOHAMMODPUR PART I PS LALA DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788163 2:SHAJAHAN LASKAR

¶35

Page No.# 6/10

¶36

S.J LASKAR ADVOCATE NOTARY PUBLIC AT HAILAKANDI HAILAKANDI BAR ASSOCIATION HAILAKANDI DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE HAILAKANDI COURT COMPLEX 788151

¶37

-----------Advocate for : MR M J QUADIR Advocate for : MR. S K GHOSH appearing for AMIN ALI

¶38

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Date : 04.05.2026

¶41

1. Heard Mr. S. K. Ghosh the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. K. Hannan, the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶42

2. This application under Order 47 read with Section 114 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the applicant, seeking corrections in the judgment and order dated 15.09.2025, passed by this Court in Review Petition No. 90/2020.

¶43

3. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Review Petition No. 90/2020 was filed by the present respondent under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the order dated 26.06.2020 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanta Kumar Deka, since retired) in I.A.(C) No. 974/2020.

¶44

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid review petition (Review Petition No. 90/2020) was allowed by this Court, however, instead of vacating the order dated 26.06.2020 passed in I.A.(C) No. 974/2020 and restoring the said Interlocutory Application for re-hearing, in the operative portion of the aforesaid order i.e., in paragraph No. 21, it was stated that the impugned order dated

¶45

Page No.# 7/10

¶46

26.06.2020 passed in I.A.(C) No. 974/2020 is reversed and the said Interlocutory Application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶47

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions contained in Order 47 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in event of allowing a review petition, the order under review has to be vacated and a date has to be fixed for rehearing of the matter, in which the order under review has been passed.

¶48

6. He submits that in paragraph No. 21 of the order dated 15.09.2025 passed in Review Petition No. 90/2020, the word “reversed” and the word “dismissed” are due to accidental slips made by this Court. He submits that in place of the word “reversed”, the word “vacated” ought to have been used and in place of the word “dismissed”, the word “restored” ought to have been used.

¶49

7. He further submits that though there is a bar under Order 47 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against further review of an order passed in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, however, there is no bar in rectifying clerical error, arithmetical error, or an error, which has occurred due to accidental slip. Hence, he submits that though, this application was filed by the present petitioner under Order 47 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the ends of justice, it may be treated as an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the accidental slip, which has crept in the paragraph No. 21 of the aforesaid order may be rectified.

¶50

8. He submits that it is a settled proposition of law that in event of

¶51

Page No.# 8/10

¶52

allowing of a review petition, the order under review has to be vacated and the case in which the order under review has been passed has to be restored for the purpose of rehearing of the matter. He further submits that the provision under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of “ Jayalakshmi Coelho Vs. Oswald Joseph Coelho” reported in (2001) 4 SCC 181 that in terms of the Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, any error occurred in decree on account of arithmetical or clerical error or accidental slip may be rectified by the Court.

¶53

9. On the other hand, Mr. A. K. Hannan, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that there is a clear bar in Order 47 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding any application to review an order made on an application for review or decree or order passed or made in a review.

¶54

10. He submits that the rectification, which is sought for by the present petitioner will touch upon the merit of the case and if allowed it would not be confined to any clerical and arithmetical error. He submits that the scope of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, even if it is interpreted liberally would allow the Court to rectify clerical and arithmetical mistakes and would not contemplate passing an effective judicial order touching upon the merit of the case after passing of the decree. He submits that after passing of the judgment and decree or order the Court becomes functus officio.

¶55

11. He submits that even if there is any error in the order dated 15.09.2025 in Review Petition No. 90/2020, the appropriate remedy is to file an appropriate application before higher court and not before this

¶56

Page No.# 9/10

¶57

Court. In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “ Dwaraka Das Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another” reported in (1999) 3 SCC 500 .

¶58

12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions.

¶59

13. On perusal of the judgment and order dated 15.09.2025 passed in Review Petition No. 90/2020, it appears that the said judgment and order is a detailed judgment and order giving reasons for allowing the aforesaid review petition, however it appears that while allowing the review petition, this Court in paragraph No. 21 of the said judgment had directed that the order under review i.e., order dated 26.06.2020 passed in the I.A.(C) No. 974/2020 is reversed and the Interlocutory Application was dismissed, which is apparently an error contrary to the provisions contained in Order 47 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶60

14. This Court is of considered opinion that as to what would happen if a review petition is allowed has been provided for in the statute itself, the provisions contained in Order 47 Rule 8 very categorically states that in the event of allowing of a review petition, a note thereof shall be made in the register and Court may at once rehear the case or make such an order as regards to rehearing of the case it thinks fit. Thus, there is no doubt in the legal position that in the event of allowing of a review petition, the matter, in which the order under review has been passed has to be reheard.

¶61

15. This Court regards the words “reverse” and dismissed” used in

¶62

Page No.# 10/10

¶63

paragraph No. 21 of the order dated 15.09.2025 to be an accidental slip, which is required to be rectified.

¶64

16. Since there is a bar provided under Order 47 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in filing an application for review of an order passed in a review petition, this Court is treating the Interlocutory Application as an application under Section 151 read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 instead of an application under Order 47 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶65

17. The Registry to re-register this case as an Interlocutory Application under Section 151 read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 instead of review application.

¶66

18. In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the error occasioned due to accidental slip in paragraph No. 21 of the judgment and order dated 15.09.2025 passed in Review Petition No. 90/2020 is hereby rectified and the word “reversed” in paragraph No. 21 of the aforesaid order shall be read as “vacated” and the word “dismissed” used in the same paragraph shall be read as “restored”.

¶67

19. Accordingly, the I.A.(C) No. 974/2020 is, hereby, restored.

¶68

20. The Registry to list the said I.A.(C) No. 974/2020 for re-hearing on 20.05.2026.

¶69

JUDGE

¶70

Comparing Assistant

Amin Ali v. Abdul Jalil Laskar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amin Ali v. Abdul Jalil Laskar

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

Sh. Roneihsanga Vs State of Mizoram and Anr.

Sh. John Lalhruaizela Vs State of Mizoram and Anr.

Sh. Bawihzika and 3 Ors. Vs Union of India r/b the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and 3 Ors.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Praneswar Rabha

The Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 2 Ors. Vs Sahida Begum Laskar and 7 Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Amir Ali