Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010179782025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/325/2025 KANAK BALA SARKAR AND 6 ORS. W/O- LATE DIJENDRA NARAYAN SARKAR, R/O- DIMATOLA WARD NO. 3, BILASIPARA, P.O. AND P.S. BILASIPARA, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783348. 2: JOUTSNA SARKAR D/O- LATE DIJENDRA NARAYAN SARKAR R/O- DIMATOLA WARD NO. 3 BILASIPARA P.O. AND P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348. 3: CHANCHALA SARKAR D/O- LATE DIJENDRA NARAYAN SARKAR R/O- DIMATOLA WARD NO. 3 BILASIPARA P.O. AND P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348. 4: MONJULA SARKAR D/O- LATE DIJENDRA NARAYAN SARKAR R/O- DIMATOLA WARD NO. 3 BILASIPARA P.O. AND P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348. 5: BIMALA SARKAR @ BIMALA ROY D/O- LATE DIJENDRA NARAYAN SARKAR Page No.# 2/4 R/O- DIMATOLA WARD NO. 3 BILASIPARA P.O. AND P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348. 6: PURNIMA SARKAR D/O- LATE DIJENDRA NARAYAN SARKAR R/O- DIMATOLA WARD NO. 3 BILASIPARA P.O. AND P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348. 7: BULI SARKAR R/O- DIMATOLA WARD NO. 3 BILASIPARA P.O. AND P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE LD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:BINDU BASINI ROY D/O- LATE MAHENDRA NARAYAN SARKAR R/O- DIMATOLA WARD NO. 3 BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348. 3:MONOJ SARKAR @ PABITRA SARKAR S/O- RANJIT KR. SARKAR R/O- WARD NO. 3 BILASIPARA P.O. AND P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348. 4:TITU SARKAR @ PRITHIRAJ SARKAR S/O- RANJIT KR. SARKAR Page No.# 3/4 R/O- WARD NO. 3 BILASIPARA P.O. AND P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, S S AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 13.08.2025 Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam representing the Respondent No.1. 2. This is an application under Section 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dhubri in Title Appeal No.34/2009. 3. On an earlier occasion, the learned court below disposed of the appeal by passing a judgment on 28.05.2014. Thereafter, the matter was brought to this Court in the guise of a Regular Second Appeal being RSA No.41/2015. This Court had set aside the said judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for passing a fresh judgment in compliance with the provision of the Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the appellate court instead of passing a fresh judgment, allowed additional evidence to be filed by the appellant. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. Page No.# 4/4 5. This Court directed the appellate court to pass fresh judgment in compliance with the provisions of the Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the only duty of the appellate court was to pass a fresh judgment in compliance of the said provisions of law. Thus, the act of allowing additional evidence is bad in law. The impugned order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dhubri in Title Appeal No.14/2024, which was earlier registered as Title Appeal No.34/2009 is set aside. 6. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh judgment in compliance of the Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure after hearing oral arguments of both sides. With the aforesaid direction, the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant