Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010073052025 2025:GAU-AS:5092 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./52/2025 M/S MARBLE CENTER AND ANR A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SREENIWAS BASUDEO COMPLEX, G.S. ROAD, GANESHGURI,GUWAHATI 05, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, SMTI LILA DEVI LAHOTY, W/O SHRI PRDEEP LAHOTY. 2: SMTI LILA DEVI LAHOTY W/O SHRI PRADEEP LAHOTY PROPRIETOR OF M/S MARBLE CENTER SREENIWAS BASUDEO COMPLEX G.S. ROAD GANESHGURI GUWAHATI 781005 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PHONE NO 94351-0942 VERSUS M/S SREENIWAS BASUDEO AND 3 ORS, A UNIT OF ASSAM VEGETABLE AND OIL PRODUCTS LTD., GENERAL MERCHAND AND COMMISSION AGENTS, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT G.S.ROAD, GANESHGURI,GUWAHATI 5, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED DIRECTOR, SRI YASH DEORAH, S/O SRI PANKAJ DEORAH. 2:YASH DEORAH S/O SRI PANKAJ DEORAH AUTHORIZED DIRECTOR OF M/S SREENIWAS BASUDEO GANESHGURI GUWAHATI 5 AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF SPANISH GARDEN FLAT NO C-404 ZOO ROAD Page No.# 2/4 GUWAHATI 05 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 3:ASSAM VEGETABLE AND OIL PRODUCTS LTD. A CO. INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT G.S. ROAD GANESHGURI GUWAHATI 06 AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED DIRECTOR SRI YASH DEORAH S/O SRI PANKAJ DEORAH PHONE 86381-82982 4:DEEPAK AGARWAL S/O SRI M.L. AGARWAL C/O SREENIWAS BASUDEO COMPLEX G.S. ROAD GANESHGRI GUWAHATI 781005 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM For the petitioner (s) : Mr. A. K. Purkayastha, Advocate For the respondent (s) : XXXX BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 25.04.2025 Heard Mr. A. K. Purkayastha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners. 2. This is an application filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) read with Chapter 10 of the Gauhati High Court Rules Page No.# 3/4 seeking review of the judgment and order dated 05.03.2025 passed in CRP(IO) No.40/2024. 3. Mr. A. K. Purkayastha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners submitted that the ground of review so taken is that an error apparent on the face of the record had resulted in passing the impugned judgment and order dated 05.03.2025 in CRP(IO) No.40/2024 in as much as this Court did not consider that the plaintiffs were granted various opportunities then also they failed to comply with the provision of Order VII Rule 11 (f) of the Code, and as such, the judgment and order passed by this Court is required to be reviewed. 4. This Court has duly perused the judgment and order sought to be reviewed. This Court had at paragraph No.7 duly detailed out the facts which led to the filing of the application seeking rejection of the plaint. This Court had also dealt with the fact that the learned Trial Court had granted various opportunities to the plaintiffs for taking appropriate steps. This Court at paragraph Nos.11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 had duly dealt with the law pertaining to rejection of the plaint when the ground taken is under Clause (f) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and the same are directory. 5. Under such circumstances, the case for review of the judgment and order dated 05.03.2025 on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record is totally misconceived. This Page No.# 4/4 Court is further of the opinion that as the grounds for exercise of review jurisdiction is not met, the instant proceedings are not tenable, for which the present application is rejected at the threshold. 6. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant