Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010175432019 2025:GAU-AS:881 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2738/2019 SRI ATAUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE HAZILAL MIAN, R/O- VILL.- NO. 1 DILABARI, MOUZA- BHARABPAD, DIST.- SONITPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS MD. JAHAR ALI AND ANR S/O- JAMADHAR SHEIKH, R/O- VILL.- NO. 1 DOLABARI, MOUZA- BHARABPAD, DIST.- SONITPUR, ASSAM. 2:SRI ABDUL MANNAN S/O- LATE HAJI FAZAR ALI R/O- VILL.- KORJONI NEPALIGAON MOUZA- MAHABHARAB P.S. TEZPUR DIST.- SONITPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P MAHANTA, MS. P SAHARIA Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : SRI ATAUR RAHMAN Page No.# 2/3 VERSUS MD. JAHAR ALI AND ANR Advocate for the applicant(s): Mr. P Mahanta Advocate for the respondent(s): X X B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 27.01.2025 This is an application filed for condonation of delay of 2185 days in preferring the review petition seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 24.05.2013 passed by this Court in RSA No.127/2002. 2. It is very pertinent at this stage to take note of that vide judgment and decree dated 24.05.2013 which is sought to be reviewed, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had declared the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in respect to Schedule – A land and further interfered with the decree passed by the learned Courts’ below in so far as the Schedule-B land is concerned. The petitioners herein were under the impression that as the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in respect to Schedule-B land was not granted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment and decree dated 24.05.2013 passed in RSA No.127/2002, the applicant’s name should have been, therefore, mutated by the Revenue Authorities. It is on the basis of that when the Revenue Page No.# 3/3 authorities rejected to do so, the petitioners herein had applied seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 24.05.2013 passed in RSA No.127/2002. 3. This Court had put a specific query upon Mr. P Mahanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant as to whether there was any counter claim being filed by the defendant, who is applicant herein. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it was a suit filed by the plaintiff and there was no counter claims. 4. Under such circumstances, the reasons so assigned in the instant application so filed would not come within the ambit of sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 2185 days in preferring the review petition. Accordingly, the interlocutory application stands rejected. 5. Further taking into account that the instant application has been rejected, the review petition which has been filed cannot be entertained and the same stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant