Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010062362022 2025:GAU-AS:2646 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/63/2022 SYED JAMIR ALI AND 10 ORS S/O LATE SULTAN ALI, R/O VILL-TITKURI, P.O.-TITKURI, P.S.-RANGIA, DIST-KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781354 2: SYED JAHUR ALI S/O LATE ABDUL GONI R/O VILL-TITKURI P.O.-TITKURI P.S.-RANGIA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781354 3: NAZRUL ISLAM S/O LATE MOKSHED ALI R/O VILL-TITKURI P.O.-TITKURI P.S.-RANGIA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781354 4: DILOWAR HUSSAIN S/O LATE MOKSED ALI R/O VILL-TITKURI P.O.-TITKURI P.S.-RANGIA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781354 5: SYEDA RINA BEGUM D/O LATE MOKSED ALI W/O HABIBUR RAHMAN Page No.# 2/9 VILL-BALIJHAR P.O.-BALIJHAR P.S.-NALBARI DIST-NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781335 6: SYEDA MINA BEGUM D/O LATE MOKSED ALI W/O KASIM ALI VILL-KHARIKOTI P.O.-BARUAJHANI P.S.-KAMALPUR DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781380 7: SYEDA RUNUWARA BEGUM D/O LATE MOKSED ALI W/O NASIRUDDIN AHMED VILL-BALIJHAR P.O.-BALIJHAR P.S.-NALBARI DIST-NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781335 8: MINUWARA BEGUM W/O LATE MOKSHED ALI R/O VILL-TITKURI P.O.-TITKURI P.S.-RANGIA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781354 9: MAHIBANU BEGUM W/O LATE MAJIBR RAHMAN R/O VILL-TITKURI P.O.-TITKURI P.S.-RANGIA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781354 10: RIJUMONI SULTANA D/O LATE MAJIBUR RAHMAN W/O AMANUL HOQUE Page No.# 3/9 VILL-GOSAI SOLMARI P.O.-RANGIA P.S.-RANGIA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781354 11: IMRAN HUSSAIN S/O LATE ABDUL GONI R/O VILL-TITKURI P.O.-TITKURI P.S.-RANGIA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-78135 VERSUS SYED MOKIB ALI AND 5 ORS S/O LATE KHASNUR ALI, R/O VILL-TITKURI, P.O.-TITKURI, P.S.-RANGIA, DIST-KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781354 2:SYEDA BASIRUN BIBI W/O LATE MOHIB ALI R/O VILL-TITKURI P.O.-TITKURI P.S.-RANGIA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781354 3:SYEDA MUNU BEGUM D/O LATE MOHIB ALI R/O VILL-TITKURI P.O.-TITKURI P.S.-RANGIA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781354 4:SYED MOHBAT ALI S/O LATE KHASNUR ALI R/O VILL-TITKURI P.O.-TITKURI P.S.-RANGIA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781354 Page No.# 4/9 5:SYED FARAZ ALI S/O LATE KHASNUR ALI R/O VILL-TITKURI P.O.-TITKURI P.S.-RANGIA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781354 6:SYED SAIFUL ALI S/O LATE KHASNUR ALI R/O VILL-TITKURI P.O.-TITKURI P.S.-RANGIA DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-78135 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD M S ALI, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A IKBAL, MR. R BARUAH BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 17.11.2025 1. Heard Md. M.S. Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Ikbal, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 02.02.2022, passed by the court of the learned Munsiff, Rangia, Kamrup in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/2019 whereby, the trial court declined to review its order dated 30.05.2019, whereby the prayer for accepting the additional written statement and additional documents filed therewith was rejected by the Page No.# 5/9 trial court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners, who are the defendants in Title Suit No. 21/2017, which is pending before the court of the learned Munsiff, were allowed to file additional written statement after the plaintiffs were allowed to file an amended plaint in the said suit. 4. He, however, submits that on 13.05.2019, the trial court declined to accept the additional written statement furnished by the defendant on the ground that it introduced new story which was beyond the changes brought by filing of the amended plaint. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the plea taken by the petitioners in their additional written statement and the document which were filed along with it is very much necessary for the just decision of the dispute between the parties. 6. He submits that the earlier engaged counsel was instructed to take those pleas and also to submit those documents. However, he failed to do so. He further submits that if the documents submitted by the petitioners, along with their additional written statement are not accepted by the court, the petitioners shall suffer great prejudice. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. He further submits that for arising at just decision of the court, a civil court is empowered to accept documents at any stage of the suit. He also submits that a party should not be made to suffer on account of default on the part of the engaged counsel. Page No.# 6/9 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order impugned in this case. He submits that the present respondents as plaintiffs were allowed to amend the plaint only to the limited extend of mentioning correct dag and patta number in the schedule of their plaint and only to that extend, the present petitioners, as respondents, were allowed to file additional written statement. However, they went beyond that as while filing the additional written statement the present petitioners made out a new story and took new defence which was not pleaded in their original written statement. 8. He has further submitted that the defendants (present petitioners) were not allowed on an earlier occasion to submit documents at a belated stage by the trial court. However, the same documents which were tried to be introduced by the petitioners, as defendants in the suit by filing an application under Order 8 Rule 1A by (petition number 550/2019) was rejected by the trial court on 25.06.2018 and the said order was not put to any kind of challenge by the petitioners. However, they again tried to introduce the said documents, along with the additional written statement and as such, same was rightly rejected by the trial court. 9. He further submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the order which was put under review and accordingly, the trial court by passing the impugned order has correctly declined to review its order dated 30.05.2019. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. It appears that by the impugned order, the trial court has declined to review Page No.# 7/9 its order dated 30.05.2019, in as much as it found that there was no error apparent in the said order. 11. It also appears that the trial court found no illegality in the order which was put under review neither any new facts were produced by the review petitioners before the trial court. 12. It further appears that the plaintiffs in the said case were allowed to amend their plaint only to the limited extend of mentioning the correct dag number and made no other changes in the original plaint. As to that extent only the present petitioners as defendants were allowed to file their additional written statement. However, it appears that the present petitioners added certain new facts in paragraph No. 13 (a) of the additional written statement and relied upon the sale deeds and revenue receipts which were earlier denied by the trial court to be submitted by the defendants by order dated 15.10.2019. 13. In the case of “Shalini Shyam Shetty And Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil” reported in “(2010) 8 SCC 329” the Apex Court has observed that the High Court’s cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunal or courts inferior to it nor can it, in exercise of its power act as a court of appeal over orders of the court or tribunal subordinate to it. 14. It further observed that High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals or courts subordinate to it within the bounds of their authority. In exercise of the Page No.# 8/9 said powers, the High Court cannot interfere to correct mere error of law or facts for just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it is a possible view. 15. It further observed that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 has to be very sparingly exercised. 16. In the instant case, the trial court by the impugned order dated 02.02.2022, has dismissed the review application filed by the present petitioner as it did not find any grounds to review its order dated 30.05.2019, this court is in agreement with the finding arrived at by the trial court in the impugned order. 17. The petitioner was given an opportunity of filing additional written statement in the Title Suit No. 21/2017 only because of the fact that the plaintiff was allowed to amend the plaint. However, the amendment of the plaint was only limited to the extent of correcting the dag number and patta number of the suit land. It appears that by order dated 30.05.2019, the additional written statement of the petitioner was not accepted as it was found that it included new pleas beyond what has been added in the plaint by amendment. 18. Further, along with the additional written statement some additional documents were also sought to be introduced. However, it appears from record that on earlier occasions, by order dated 25.06.2018, the prayer of the petitioner to allow him to produce those documents was rejected and the order dated 25.06.2018 has not put to challenge. Thus, it appears that the trial court was not wrong initially while passing order Page No.# 9/9 dated 30.05.2019 as it was a reasoned order. Further, the petitioner has failed to show any sufficient reason justifying the review of order dated 30.05.2019 by the trial court. 19. In view of the above discussions, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order rejecting the review application filed by the present petitioner does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality justifying any interference by this court in the same in exercise of its supervisory power. 20. This civil revision petition (IO) is, accordingly, dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant