Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010276242024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/548/2024 DADUL BORAH S/O LATE LAKHESWAR BORA, R/O KAMARPHODIA, JUGONIA GAON, NAGAR MAHAL MOUZA, P.O.-CHAULKARA, P.S.- SIVASAGAR, DIST- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN-785640 VERSUS USIT BORA AND ANR. S/O LATE RATNESWAR BORA, R/O KAMARPHODIA, JUGONIA GAON, NAGAR MAHAL MOUZA, P.O.-CHAULKARA, P.S.- SIVASAGAR, DIST- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN-785640 2:DIBYA JYOTI BORA S/O LATE RATNESWAR BORA R/O KAMARPHODIA JUGONIA GAON NAGAR MAHAL MOUZA P.O.-CHAULKARA P.S.- SIVASAGAR DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN-78564 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R SHOME, MR N ALAM,MR A J GHOSH Advocate for the Respondent : MR B SHARMA, MR. M HASSAN,MR S SHARMA Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date :04.04.2025 Heard Mr. A.R. Shome, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 12.11.2024, in Misc. Appeal No. 1/2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sivasagar. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2024, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sivasagar (‘first appellate Court’, for short) had dismissed the appeal with a cost of Rs. 1000/- to be paid by the petitioners/appellant therein, to the respondents herein and affirmed the order dated 04.05.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Sivasagar (‘trial Court’, for short), in Misc. (J) Case No. 145/2023, arising out of Misc. (J) Case No. 146/2023. 4. Mr. Shome, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 8/2013, before the learned trial Court and during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the petitioner had filed one application for amendment of the plaint on 10.11.2023, and after hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court had allowed the amendment. Mr. Shome also submits that against the said order, dated 10.11.2023, the respondents had herein filed one review petition, after expiry of the period of limitation, for review of the order, dated 10.11.2023, by which amendment of the plaint was allowed. Mr. Shome further submits that there was a delay in filing the Page No.# 3/5 application for review by the respondents herein, for which the respondents had filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 9 days in filing the review petition, and in the said petition, no sufficient ground was shown, but the learned trial Court had allowed the application and condoned the delay, vide impugned order dated 04.05.2024. Mr. Shome further submits that the said application was not supported by verification and affidavit as required under Order 6 Rule 15 of the CPC and the said order of the learned trial Court was challenged before the learned first appellate Court by filing one appeal, being Misc. Appeal No. 1/2024, but, the learned first appellate Court had dismissed the appeal, vide impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2024 and imposed a cost of Rs. 1000/- against the petitioner herein, and against the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2024, this revision petition is preferred by the petitioner. 4.1. Mr. Shome further submits that in the impugned order, dated 04.05.2024, the learned trial Court had condoned the delay without application of mind and without considering the fact that no sufficient ground was shown for the aforementioned delay and that the learned first appellate Court had also failed to consider the same and illegally and arbitrarily imposed a cost of Rs. 1000/- upon the petitioner/appellant therein, and that both impugned orders, being illegal and arbitrary are liable to be set aside and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that in fact there was a delay of 8 days and the said delay had taken place on account of illness of the wife of one of the respondents and also on account of delay in receipt of the certified copy, and the same was not deliberate and intentional and both the Courts below have rightly taken note of Page No.# 4/5 the same and condoned the delay. Mr. Sharma also submits that the learned first appellate Court had upheld the order of condoning the delay and that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders, and therefore, Mr. Sharma has contended to dismiss this petition. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order dated 04.05.2024, passed by the learned trial Court, in Misc. (J) Case No. 145/2023, arising out of Misc. (J) Case No. 146/2023, and the impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2024, in Misc. Appeal No. 1/2024, passed by the learned first appellate Court. 7. That, perusal of the impugned order dated 04.05.2024, indicates that the order which was sought to be reviewed, was of dated 10.11.2023, and as such, the petition ought to have been filed on 09.12.2023, for review of the same, but the petition was filed on 19.12.2023, and that 09.12.2023 and 10.12.2023 were Court holidays and the certified copy of the order was received on 18.12.2023. Further, it appears that the ground of delay had been shown as illness of the wife of one of the respondents and medical documents were also furnished to substantiate the same and considering the same, the learned trial Court had allowed the application and condoned the delay. 8. The same aspect had duly been considered by the learned first appellate Court also in the appeal wherein it had discussed the matter in detail in paragraph Nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2024. 9. Having carefully examined the impugned order dated 04.05.2024, passed by the learned trial Court and the impugned judgment and order dated Page No.# 5/5 12.11.2024, passed by the learned first appellate Court, this Court finds that the impugned order and judgment both are not arbitrary and illegal requiring any interference of this Court. The learned trial Court, having been satisfied with the sufficient cause being shown by the respondents herein, exercised its discretion and condoned the delay and the same had duly been taken note by the learned first appellate Court. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no merit in this revision petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 11. However, considering the facts and circumstances on the record, the direction of the learned first appellate Court to the petitioner for payment of cost of Rs. 1000/-, seems to be unwarranted as the petitioner herein has exercised his right to file an appeal against the impugned order, dated 04.05.2024 and therefore, the direction for payment of cost stands set aside and quashed. 12. In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant