Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010010162024 2025:GAU-AS:9944 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/28/2024 PAPPU KALITA S/O- SRI SURESH KALITA, R/O- WARD NO. 4, RANGIA BAZAR, P.O. AND P.S. RANGIA, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781354. VERSUS BISWA NATH JAJODIA S/O- LATE BAJRANGLAL JAJODIA, R/O- RANGIA TOWN, WARD NO. 4, RANGIA BAZAR, P.O. AND P.S. RANGIA, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781354. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PAUL, MR. J PAUL Advocate for the Respondent : MR P C GOSWAMI, MR S ISLAM,MR. A CHOUDHURY BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 01.08.2025 Heard Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 of the CPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated Page No.# 2/4 28.07.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, in Misc. (J) Case No. 227/2022, arising out of Title Appeal No. 9/2019. 3. It is to be noted here that the impugned order dated 28.07.2023, the Civil Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon (‘Appellate Court’, for short) had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for review of the order dated 18.08.2022, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 170/2022. 4. Mr. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2019, passed by the learned Munsiff, Kamrup, Rangia, in Title Suit No. 10/2014, by preferring an appeal, being Title Appeal No. 9/2019, before the learned Appellate Court, which is pending for disposal till date. Mr. Paul also submits that in the said title appeal, the petitioner had filed an application under 41 Rule 27 CPC to adduce some documents as additional evidence, including challans and rent receipts, and upon the said application, the learned Appellate Court had registered Misc. (J) Case No. 170/2022, arising out of Title Appeal No. 9/2019, and thereafter, vide order dated 18.08.2022, had dismissed the said petition. Mr. Paul further submits that thereafter, the petitioner had filed one petition for review of the order dated 18.08.2022, before the learned Appellate Court, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 227/2022, and thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned Appellate Court, vide impugned order dated 28.07.2023, had dismissed the said petition. 4.1. Mr. Paul, by referring to the order of this Court dated 27.08.2024, in CRP(IO) No. 302/2024, submits that in the aforementioned order, this Court had allowed the petition filed by the petitioner therein by setting aside the orders dated 18.08.2022 and 28.07.2023, by relying upon a decision of Hon’ble Page No.# 3/4 Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148, and that the present petition is squarely covered by the aforementioned order, and therefore, Mr. Paul has contended to allow this petition. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection in the event of allowing this petition. However, Mr. Choudhury submits that since the matter is pending for a long period, the learned Appellate Court may be directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the order dated 18.08.2022, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 170/2022, and also the impugned order dated 28.07.2023, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 227/2022, and also gone through the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim Uddin (supra). 7. A careful perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ibrahim Uddin (supra), reveals that the stage of taking an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is at the time of when the Court takes upon the said appeal for final disposal. However, in the case in hand, admittedly, the appeal was not taken up for hearing for final disposal and before final disposal of the appeal, the learned Appellate Court has considered the petition. There is also no bar in allowing the petitioner to adduce some documents as additional evidence, including challans and rent receipts. 8. Thus, having examined the impugned order dated 28.07.2023, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 227/2022 and the order dated 18.08.2022, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 170/2022, this Court is of the view that the same fail to withstand Page No.# 4/4 the legal scrutiny, and both the orders stand set aside and quashed. 9. It is provided that the learned Appellate Court shall take up the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, at the time of final disposal of the title appeal. 10. In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed of. 11. The parties have to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant