Dismissed¶49

MD Alauddin and Anr. v. Bidyut Bhusan Das

Gauhati HC16 Jul 2026Review.Pet./81/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; Review.Pet./81/2025; review of judgment dated 20.06.2024 in RSA/112/2009; second appeal dismissed; Order XLI Rule 27 CPC; application for taking additional evidence by Appellate Court; substantial questions of law; scope and grounds of review jurisdiction; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320; S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy (2022) SCC OnLine 1034; Chhajju Ram v. Neki; Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos; Union of India v. Sandur Manganese; Karimganj; review application rejected.

What did the court decide?

The primary ground of the review is factually incorrect: paragraph 23 of the judgment dated 20.06.2024 rendered in RSA/112/2009 contains a specific discussion of the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, including the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ¶23

MD Alauddin and Anr. Vs Bidyut Bhusan Das — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 20.06.2024 passed in RSA/112/2009 deserves to be reviewed on the ground that the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC filed along with the appeal was not considered in the proper perspective. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Apart from the ground raised not being factually correct and there being discussion on the Order XLI Rule 27 CPC application in the impugned judgment, the grounds taken are not within the purview of the grounds envisaged to invoke the review jurisdiction.

¶47

Key takeaways

The scope of invoking review jurisdiction is circumscribed and limited to the parameters laid down in the relevant provisions of the CPC, as per the principles in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320, reiterated by a Three Judges' Bench in S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy (2022) SCC OnLine 1034.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition under the CPC against judgment and order dated 20.06.2024 in RSA/112/2009 (Gauhati High Court), whereby the second appeal was dismissed and substantial questions of law answered in favour of the respondent — Sole ground urged: non-consideration, in proper perspective, of an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC filed along with the appeal for taking evidence by the Appellate Court — Held: (i) the ground is factually incorrect, as paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment specifically discussed the said application, including the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Krishna Lal Ghosh and Ibrahim Uddin); (ii) the scope of review jurisdiction is circumscribed and limited to the parameters in the relevant provisions of the CPC, as laid down in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, and reiterated by a Three Judges' Bench in S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (2022) SCC OnLine 1034; (iii) the grounds raised are not within the purview of the grounds envisaged to invoke review jurisdiction — Review application rejected.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010144842024

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : Review.Pet./81/2025

¶6

MD ALAUDDIN AND ANR DIST. KARIMGANJ.

¶7

2: MD. ABDUL LATIF

¶8

BOTH ARE S/O LATE IDRISH ALI R/O VILL. NARIKOLI P.O. LAKSHI BAZAR P.S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

BIDYUT BHUSAN DAS S/O LATE BINOD BIHARI DAS, VILL. NARIKOLI, P.O. LAKSHI BAZAR, P.S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM.

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA, MR T GOGOI,MS. R CHOUDHURY,MS. P BHATTACHARYA

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MS. J PAUL , MS S BHOWMICK

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶14

ORDER

¶15

17.07.2026

¶16

Heard Shri T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P.

¶17

Page No.# 2/5

¶18

Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. J. Paul, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

¶19

2. By the instant application, the applicant has prayed for review of the judgment and order dated 20.06.2024 passed in RSA/112/2009. By the said order, the appeal was dismissed and the substantial questions of law were answered accordingly in favour of the respondent in the appeal.

¶20

3. Shri Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has primarily argued that along with the appeal, there was an application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC for taking evidence by the Appellate Court. He has submitted that the said application was not considered in the proper perspective. He further submitted that if the said application is allowed, there would be a mark change in the decision to be taken in the appeal.

¶21

4. Per contra, Ms. Paul, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC was taken on board by this Court while disposing of the second appeal and accordingly, there are no grounds for preferring a review. She has also submitted that the jurisdiction to be exercised by a review court, being limited and circumscribed, no case for invoking such jurisdiction is made out.

¶22

5. As noted above, the primary ground of filing this review is non-consideration of the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC.

¶23

6. This Court has, however noted that in the judgment dated 20.06.2024 rendered by this Court in paragraph 23, there is a specific discussion on the said application, including the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For ready reference, the said paragraph is extracted hereunder:

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

“The case of Krishna Lal Ghosh (supra) of this Court and Ibrahim Uddin (supra) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are on the aspect of application of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the present appeal is a second appeal where only substantial questions of law are to be decided. This Court has also noticed that the present issue which has been raised in this second appeal was not even the issue before the learned Trial Court or the First Appellate Court. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case of Ibrahim Uddin supra) is that such application under Order XLI Rule 27 is not to be rejected at the outset but may be considered at the time of hearing and therefore the said ratio may not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

¶26

7. After deliberation of the matter and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgment and order dated 20.06.2024 was pronounced.

¶27

8. The scope of invoking review jurisdiction is circumscribed and limited to the parameters laid down in the relevant provisions of the CPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors. , reported in (2013) 8 SCC

¶28

320 , the following has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

¶29

“20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

¶30

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

¶31

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

¶32

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

¶33

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

¶34

The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.

¶35

Page No.# 4/5

¶36

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:

¶37

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

¶38

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

¶39

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

¶40

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

¶41

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

¶42

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

¶43

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

¶44

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

¶45

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”

¶46

In the subsequent case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors. , reported in (2022) SCC OnLine 1034 , a Three Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the aforesaid law laid down in the case of Kamlesh Verma (supra).

¶47

10. In the instant case, as mentioned above, apart from the ground raised not being factually correct and there being discussion on the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, the grounds are not within the purview of the grounds envisaged to invoke the review jurisdiction.

¶48

Page No.# 5/5

¶49

11. In view of the above, the review application stands rejected.

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

Comparing Assistant

MD Alauddin and Anr. v. Bidyut Bhusan Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Alauddin and Anr. v. Bidyut Bhusan Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anisur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Abinash Balmiki and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Icco Private Limited, Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Md. Jiyaur Pasa Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Mrinal Ali Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

MD Mintu Ali Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.