Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010002222017 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/29/2021 CHANDAN PAUL CHOUDHURY @ MANOJ PAUL CHOUDHURY and ANR. S/O LATE MAKHAN LAL PAUL CHOUDHURY, R/O WARD NO.2, P.M. DUTTA ROAD, DHUBRI TOWN, P.O- DHUBRI, P.S- DHUBRI, DISTRICT- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783301 2: ON THE DEATH OF TAPAS PAUL CHOUDHURY @ MALAY PAUL CHOUDHURY HIS LEGAL HEIRS DHUBRI DISTRICT 2.1: SMTI PUSHPALATA PAUL CHOUDHURY W/O LATE TAPAS PAUL CHOUDHURY @ MALAY PAUL CHOUDHURY R/O WARD NO.2 P.M. DUTTA ROAD DHUBRI TOWN P.O.-DHUBRI P.S.-DHUBRI DISTRICT-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 2.2: MANOJIT PAUL CHOUDHURY S/O LATE TAPAS PAUL CHOUDHURY @ MALAY PAUL CHOUDHURY R/O WARD NO.2 P.M. DUTTA ROAD DHUBRI TOWN P.O.-DHUBRI P.S.-DHUBRI DISTRICT-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 2.3: BINAYAK PAUL CHOUDHURY S/O LATE TAPAS PAUL CHOUDHURY @ MALAY PAUL CHOUDHURY R/O WARD NO.2 Page No.# 2/5 P.M. DUTTA ROAD DHUBRI TOWN P.O.-DHUBRI P.S.-DHUBRI DISTRICT-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78330 VERSUS ON DEATH OF RATHINDRA NATH DUTTA HIS LEGAL HEIR JAYA DUTTA and 2 ORS. R/O B.A. 128, SALTLAKE, P.O- BIDHAN NAGAR, KOLKATA 2:SRI ATINDRA NATH DUTTA S/O LATE UPENDRA NATH DUTTA R/O- 757 BLOCK-P P.O-NEW ALIPUR KOLKATA-53 3:ON THE DEATH OF DIBAKAR MAZUMDAR HIS LEGAL HEIRS NA 3.1:SMTI SOMA MAZUMDAR W/O LATE DIBAKAR MAZUMDAR 3.2:DIPANKAR MAZUMDAR S/O LATE DIBAKAR MAZUMDAR 3.3:SMTI RANJU MAZUMDAR W/O BHOLA MAZUMDAR 3.4:SMTI SONALI MAZUMDAR S/O MRIDUL MAZUMDAR ALL ARE RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 4 RABINDRA SARNI DHUBRI P.O. DHUBRI P.S. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.P SAHARIA, MR.P MAHANTA Advocate for the Respondent : MR G N SAHEWALLA(R3.1TO3.4), A R PAL(R3.1TO3.4),MS. S. TODI(R3.1TO3.4),MR M SAHEWALLA(R3.1TO3.4),MD ASLAM,MR G N SAHEWALLA,MS B Page No.# 3/5 SARMA,MD ASLAM(R3.1TO3.4),, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 08.09.2026 Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, the counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Todi, the learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri in Title Appeal No.85/2011 affirming the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2011 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dhubri in T.S. No.196/2009. 3. Rathindra Nath Dutta and Atindra Nath Dutta are the owners of the suit property situated at Dhubri Town, Assam. They are residents of Kolkata, West Bengal. They appointed Debakar Mazumder as their Attorney. 4. The suit property was given on rent to the present petitioners at a monthly rent of ₹110/-. The rent was collected by Munindra Bhusan Roy @ Kanu Babu, who was appointed to that effect by Rathindra Nath Dutta and Atindra Nath Dutta. Since the month of April, 2002, the petitioners refused to pay the rent. 5. Therefore, Rathindra Nath Dutta and Atindra Nath Dutta , through their Attorney Dibakar Mazumder filed a suit against the present petitioners praying for recovery of vacant possession of the suit property as well as for recovery of arrear rent of ₹880/-. Page No.# 4/5 6. The petitioners being the defendants in the suit, filed the written statement. They claimed that they have been in possession of the suit property for a period of 40 years. They further claimed that they were never the tenants under Rathindra Nath Dutta and Atindra Nath Dutta. 7. The trial court decreed the suit. The trial court held that the present petitioners being the defendants before the trial court are liable to be evicted from the suit premise. 8. The petitioners filed an appeal in the court of learned Civil Judge, Dhubri. The appeal being Title Appeal No.85/2011 was also dismissed by the learned appellate court. 9. The Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, prohibits filing of a second appeal and therefore, the petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments, filed the present revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC. 10. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 11. At this stage, it would be fruitful to have brief visit to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It reads as under “115. Revision .- (1)The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears- (a)to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b)to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c)to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: [Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order Page No.# 5/5 made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.] (2)[ The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. (3)[ A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court.] ” 12. A plain reading of Section 115 of the CPC shows that the High Court will interfere when the sub-ordinate court had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or where the sub-ordinate court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or the sub-ordinate court has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 13. In the case in hand, there are no materials to show that the trial court as well as the appellate court had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. There are no materials in this case to show that the trial court as well as the appellate court had exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 14. This Court is of the opinion that there is nothing in this case, which warrants interference by the High Court. The present revision petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly. Send back the trial court records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant