Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010082112022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./84/2022 GUWAHATI KABARSTHAN COMMITTEE AND 2 ORS. A REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860, HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI KABARSTHAN CAMPUS ATHGAON, GUWAHATI-08, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY. 2: THE PRESIDENT GUWAHATI KABARSTHAN COMMITTEE HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI KABARSTHAN CAMPUS ATHGAON GUWAHATI -08. 3: THE SECRETARY GUWAHATI KABARSTHAN COMMITTEE HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI KABARSTHAN CAMPUS ATHGAON GUWAHATI -08 VERSUS SARFUDDIN KHAN S/O LATE NIZAMUL ALI SHOP NO. 2, ATHGAON, KABARSTHAN, ATHGAON, GUWAHATI -08, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KATAKI, MS. S. KAR,MR D KALITA,MR K BROOK,MR. J KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, MS. D R BASUMATARY,MR. N G KUNDU Page No.# 2/6 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 17.09.2026 Heard Mr. J. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S.K. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for reviewing the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by this Court in CRP No.06/2019. 3. The respondent filed the Title Suit No.33/2018 against the present petitioners praying for a decree declaring that he is the tenant under the present petitioners and he cannot be evicted by the defendants. 4. Along with the suit, an injunction application was also filed whereby the respondent prayed for opening of an iron gate which was closed by the present petitioners causing disturbance in entry and exit to the tenanted premises. The learned trial court refused the said prayer for injunction and the said order was also upheld in appeal. 5. Therefore, the respondent filed the Civil Revision Petition No.06/2019 before this Court. The present petitioners in spite of service of notice, did not contest the said revision petition. 6. While disposing of the said revision petition, this court directed that the present Page No.# 3/6 petitioners shall not close the said gate. It was directed by this Court that for security reasons, that gate shall be closed at night or at any time but there shall be a security guard to operate the gate. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 28.03.2022 passed by this Court in CRP No.06/2019, this review petition has been filed. 8. Mr. Kalita, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice upon the present petitioners was not served upon them, rather it was accepted by somebody else and that is the reason why the petitioners could not contest the revision petition before this Court. 9. Mr. Roychoudhury has submitted that the errors highlighted by the petitioners are mere typographical errors and those can be corrected by exercising the power under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Roychoudhury has submitted that in the guise of a review petition, this court cannot hear an appeal. Deliberating upon the differences between an appeal and a review petition, Mr. Roychoudhury has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 8th September, 2025 passed in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another. Paragraph 15 of the said judgment is quoted as under: “15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. The power of review is different from appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions: 15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. 15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. Page No.# 4/6 15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. 15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power. 15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered.6 Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors.” 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 11. Now, the question arises whether the powers of review provided by Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC can be applied in the present case. Order 47, Rule 1 reads as under: “1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree on order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for there view. [Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]” 12. In Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr. v. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors. [(2005) 4 SCC 741], it has been held that the Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code provides Page No.# 5/6 for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. 13. In Inderchand Jain (D) Th.Lrs. vs Motilal (D) Th.Lrs [ (2009)14 SCC 663 ), the Supreme Court reiterated the principles of review in this way – “(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may be conceivable be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an Advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine `actus curiae neminem gravabit'." 14. The phrase ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit' means an act of the Court shall prejudice no one. In Inderchand Jain (D) Th.Lrs. vs Motilal (D) Th.Lrs (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a mistake on the part of the court may also call for a review of the order. 15. Reverting to the case in hand, I have decided to agree with Mr. Roychoudhury, who submitted that in the guise of this review petition, the petitioners have challenged the merit of the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by this Court in CRP No.06/2019 and this is not permissible in law. 16. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that this review Page No.# 6/6 petition is not maintainable in law. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant