Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010141182024 2025:GAU-AS:14282 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/239/2024 SIDDHARTHA BANERJEE S/O- PRANAB KUMAR BANNERJEE, R/O- 11A, ANANDALAY, M.L NEHRU ROAD, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI-01, KAMRUP (M) VERSUS PARTHA SARATHI BANERJEE S/O- PRANAB KUMAR BANNERJEE, R/O- 11A, ANANDALAY, M.L NEHRU ROAD, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI-01, KAMRUP (M) Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS, MR. P GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : MS. M BARUAH, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 27.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Page No.# 2/3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the Order dated 27.06.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No.1, Kamrup(M) in Misc (J) Case No.631/29023 arising out of Title Suit No.68/2019. 3. The respondent filed an application before the Court below under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC praying for impleading of Smt. Tusharkana Banerjee as defendant No.6 and M/S. B. N. Dey & Co. as defendant No.7. 4. The Trial Court allowed the impleadment of Smt. Tusharkana Banerjee as defendant No.6 but, did not allowed M/S. B. N. Dey & Co. as defendant No.7. Thereafter, the respondent again filed an application praying for impleading M/S. B. N. Dey & Co. as defendant No.7, this time this prayer was allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court has reviewed as its own earlier order and it is not permissible under the law. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the earlier order, the Trial Court did not show any reason as to why M/S. B. N. Dey & Co. was not allowed to be impleaded as defendant No.7. 7. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for both sides and I have decided to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. After passing of the first order, denying impleadment of M/S. B. N. Dey & Co., the respondent should have approached a higher Court seeking relief, the same Court cannot review its own order, the impugned order is nothing but a clear example of review its own order by the same Court and it is not permissible under the law. 9. Therefore the impugned order dated 27.06.2024, passed by the learned Civil Page No.# 3/3 Judge (Sr. Div.) No.1, Kamrup(M) in Misc (J) Case No.631/29023 arising out of Title Suit No.68/2019 is bad in law and stands set aside. 10. Interim order, passed earlier, stands vacated. 11. The Trial Court shall proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with the procedure as laid down by law. 12. With the aforesaid direction, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant