Gauhati HC Vacates Own Order After Finding It Addressed Only One of Two Challenged Execution Court Rulings
Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita allowed a review petition after finding that the court’s earlier civil revision order had entirely omitted any discussion of one of two impugned Executing Court orders, constituting an error apparent on the face of the record.
The Gauhati High Court has vacated its own order dated 10 November 2025 passed in Civil Revision Petition (IO) No. 375/2025, after finding that the order had dealt with only one of two Executing Court rulings that had been challenged in that petition. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, sitting singly, allowed Review Petition 274/2025 filed by Subhodeep Roy and directed that CRP (IO) No. 375/2025 be restored and listed for rehearing in the second week of May 2026. The review turned on a straightforward but consequential gap: the earlier order had addressed the dismissal of Misc. (J) Case No. 269/2025 but said nothing about the dismissal of Misc. (J) Case No. 270/2025, both of which had been impugned before this Court.
The Underlying Property Dispute and Execution Proceedings
The dispute has its roots in Title Suit No. 76/1979, filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents before the Trial Court, seeking declaration of right, title and interest over Schedule-1 land and recovery of khas possession of land described in Schedules 2, 3 and 4 of the plaint, along with eviction of the defendants.
The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 12 December 1986 and 17 December 1986, partly allowed the suit. It granted the declaration of right, title and interest over Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 land but declined relief in respect of Schedule 3 and Schedule 4 land.
The respondents’ predecessor appealed. The First Appellate Court, by its judgment and decree dated 2 April 2005 in Title Appeal No. 1/1987, modified the Trial Court’s decree and held that the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of khas possession of the Schedule 3 and 4 land by evicting defendant No. 2 and defendant Nos. 3 to 10.
The petitioner’s predecessor then filed Regular Second Appeal No. 230/2005 before the Gauhati High Court. That appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 8 January 2016. In the meantime, the decree holder had already instituted Title Execution Case No. 5/2005 before the Executing Court.
Applications Filed in the Execution Proceedings
Within the execution proceedings, the present petitioner filed two separate applications before the Executing Court — the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Cachar, Silchar.
The first application was filed under Order 13 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for calling of records of Title Suit No. 62/1971 and Title Suit No. 335/1981 from the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge, Cachar, Silchar and the Court of the learned Sadar Munsiff No. 1, Silchar respectively. This was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 269/2025.
The second application, registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 270/2025, was filed on the basis of Petition No. 582/2008 under Order 13 Rule 10(2), praying for calling of the records of PP Case No. 30/1974 from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar. The petitioner had challenged the execution of the decree on the ground that no demarcation or partition had taken place in PP Case No. 30/1974.
By two separate orders dated 29 August 2025, the Executing Court dismissed both Misc. (J) cases, rejecting the applications for calling of records.
The Civil Revision and the Gap in the Earlier Order
Aggrieved by both dismissal orders, the petitioner filed Civil Revision Petition (IO) No. 375/2025 under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging both orders dated 29 August 2025. By its judgment and order dated 10 November 2025, this Court dismissed the civil revision petition.
The petitioner then filed Review Petition 274/2025 under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that the order under review had disposed of CRP (IO) No. 375/2025 by considering only the impugned order in Misc. (J) Case No. 269/2025. No discussion had been made regarding the order passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 270/2025.
Mr. B. J. Ghosh, counsel for the review petitioner, argued that this omission constituted an apparent error requiring the order to be set aside and the civil revision petition to be restored and reheard.
Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, Senior Advocate for the respondents, defended the Executing Court’s orders on merits. He argued that Order 13 Rule 10(2) can be invoked only for calling of records from any Court, and that the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar cannot be regarded as a Court — making the Executing Court’s dismissal of Misc. (J) Case No. 270/2025 correct in law. However, he fairly conceded that the order under review had dealt only with the order in Misc. (J) Case No. 269/2025 and had made no discussion regarding the order in Misc. (J) Case No. 270/2025.
The Court’s Reasoning on Drafting Confusion and the Apparent Error
Justice Kalita traced the confusion to the manner in which the civil revision petition had been drafted. Rule 2 of Chapter IV of Part-II of the Gauhati High Court Rules requires that every application presented to the High Court must state, immediately after the cause title, the section and statute under which the application is made, the date of the order complained of, and the value of the subject matter.
The Court found that in CRP (IO) No. 375/2025, while the order passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 269/2025 had been separately mentioned after the cause title, the third paragraph of the petition had used the word “order” in singular form when referring to both Misc. (J) Case No. 269/2025 and Misc. (J) Case No. 270/2025. This gave rise to confusion about the number of orders actually being challenged.
The Court observed that a clear and separate mention of the impugned order dated 29 August 2025 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 270/2025 after the cause title would have avoided the confusion that occurred. The Court also referred to Rule 20(2) of the Civil Court Rules and Orders of the Gauhati High Court, which provides that applications in regard to distinct subject matter shall be made in separate petitions.
Despite attributing the confusion partly to the drafting of the petition, the Court held that the omission in the order under review was an error apparent on the face of the record. The order dated 10 November 2025 had made no discussion whatsoever about the order dated 29 August 2025 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 270/2025, and that gap could not stand.
Order
Justice Kalita vacated the judgment and order dated 10 November 2025 passed in Civil Revision Petition (IO) No. 375/2025. The Court directed that both impugned orders dated 29 August 2025 — passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 269/2025 and Misc. (J) Case No. 270/2025 in connection with Title Execution Case No. 05/2025 by the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Cachar, Silchar — are to be reconsidered in CRP (IO) No. 375/2025.
The Registry was directed to restore CRP (IO) No. 375/2025 and list it for hearing in the second week of May 2026 on a date to be fixed by it. Review Petition 274/2025 was allowed.