Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010159702022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./8/2025 ON THE DEATH OF GOBINDA DAS HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS. NAMELY- 1.1: DHARESHWARI DAS D/O LATE GOBINDA DAS R/O NO.2 MATHGHARIA NEAR FLYOVER P.S.- NOOMATI GUWAHATI- 20 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM 1.2: CHAKRESHWAR DAS S/O LATE GOBINDA DAS R/O NO.2 MATHGHARIA NEAR FLYOVER P.S.- NOOMATI GUWAHATI- 20 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM. 1.3: BHARTI DAS D/O LATE GOBINDA DAS R/O TARTOLA SATHGAON P.S.- SATHGAON GUWAHATI- 26 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 1.4: AARATI DEVI D/O LATE GOBINDA DAS R/O NO.2 MATHGHARIA NEAR FLYOVER P.S.- NOOMATI GUWAHATI- 20 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM. 1.5: AIKAN DEVI D/O LATE GOBINDA DAS R/O NO.2 MATHGHARIA NEAR FLYOVER P.S.- NOOMATI GUWAHATI- 20 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM. 1.6: JAGANNATH DAS S/O LATE GOBINDA DAS R/O NO.2 MATHGHARIA NEAR FLYOVER P.S.- NOOMATI GUWAHATI- 20 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM 1.7: DABOKAI DEVI D/O LATE GOBINDA DAS VILL.- GAYASPUR DIST.- SIWAN BIHAR PIN- 841210 VERSUS ON THE DEATH OF SADHIRAM DAS HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS. NAMELY- 1.1:DIBAKAR DAS S/O LATE SAHIRAM DAS R/O NO. 2 Page No.# 3/5 MATHGHARIA P.S.- NOOMATI GUWAHATI- 20 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM. 1.2:NARAYAN DAS S/O LATE SAHIRAM DAS R/O NO. 2 MATHGHARIA P.S.- NOOMATI GUWAHATI- 20 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM. 1.3:BHAIGYA DAS W/O LATE SAHIRAM DAS R/O NO. 2 MATHGHARIA P.S.- NOOMATI GUWAHATI- 20 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM. 1.4:KALPANA HALOI D/O LATE SAHIRAM DAS R/O NO. 2 MATHGHARIA P.S.- NOOMATI GUWAHATI- 20 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM. 1.5:RITA HALOI D/O LATE SAHIRAM DAS R/O NO. 2 MATHGHARIA P.S.- NOOMATI GUWAHATI- 20 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM. 1.6:ZONALI DAS D/O LATE SAHIRAM DAS R/O NO. 2 MATHGHARIA P.S.- NOOMATI GUWAHATI- 20 Page No.# 4/5 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. V. Rai, Advocate : Ms. P. Dey, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None appears. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 06.02.2025 An application for review would lie inter alia when the order suffers from any error on the face of the record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure in justice. The power to review can also be exercised by the Court in the event of discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. An application for review would also lie if the order has been passed on account of some mistake. Furthermore, an application for review shall also lie for any other sufficient reason. 2. The instant review application has been filed on the ground that Mr. S. P. Roy, Advocate was not present when the matter was called up for hearing. It is relevant to take note of that the judgment and order which have been sought to be reviewed was in respect to a Regular Second Appeal bearing No.149/2007 which arises out of a suit filed in the year 1991 and thereupon an appeal filed in the year 2003. It is further Page No.# 5/5 relevant to take note of that on 19.04.2022 when the matter was called, the Appellants did not appear. However, for the ends of justice, this Court had adjourned the matter to be taken up on 26.04.2022 making it clear that if the appellant failed to appear on the next date, this Court would dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. 3. On the day when the matter was called for, the counsel for the appellants one Mr. B. Das, Advocate was duly present and he was heard. The submission so made by the learned counsel for the Applicant is that if Mr. S. P. Roy, the learned counsel would have appeared, he would have submitted better arguments and as such the judgment and order passed by this Court on 26.04.2022 is required to be reviewed. It is a well settled principle that merely because another counsel would have submitted better arguments cannot be a ground for review. In addition to that, this Court had also asked the learned counsel for the Applicant as to what additional submission he would have made. The learned counsel only submitted that the ground of review sought for is on the ground that he could not appear on the earlier occasion. The same would not fall within the permissible limits of a review jurisdiction for which the instant review application stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant