Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010040652025 2025:GAU-AS:5091 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./25/2025 AIKON SAIKIA AND ANR W/O- SRI RAM CHANDRA SAIKIA, BRINDABAN PATH, H.NO. 2, RUPNAGAR, P.S.- BHANGAGARH, P.O.- INDRAPUR 781032 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. 2: RAM CHANDRA SAIKIA S/O BATAHURAM SAIKIA BRINDABAN PATH H.NO. 2 RUPNAGAR P.S.- BHANGAGARH P.O.- INDRAPUR 781032 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM VERSUS MANORANJAN SAIKIA AND ORS SON OF LATE TARANATH ASIKIS, VILLAGE- PUB-SARANIA, P.O. AND P.S.- CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI-3, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. 2:BHUPEN SAIKIA SON OF LATE TARANATH SAIKIA VILLAGE- PUB-SARANIA P.O. AND P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) Page No.# 2/7 ASSAM. 3:BIPUL SAIKIA SON OF LATE TARANATH SAIKIA VILLAGE- PUB-SARANIA P.O. AND P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 4:MANTU SAIKIA SON OF LATE TARANATH SAIKIA VILLAGE- PUB-SARANIA P.O. AND P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 5:GAJIN SAIKIA SON OF LATE TARANATH SAIKIA VILLAGE- PUB-SARANIA P.O. AND P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 6:PRATIVA MEDHI SAIKIA WIFE OF LATE MANIK SAIKIA VILLAGE- PUB-SARANIA P.O. AND P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) Page No.# 3/7 ASSAM. 7:HEMEN SAIKIA SON OF LATE MANIK SAIKIA VILLAGE- PUB-SARANIA P.O. AND P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 8:PARI SAIKIA DAUGHTER OF LATE MANIK SAIKIA VILLAGE- PUB-SARANIA P.O. AND P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 9:HEMAPRAVA SAIKIA WIFE OF LATE TARANATH SAIKIA VILLAGE- PUB-SARANIA P.O. AND P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM For the petitioner (s) : Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Ms. R. Bharali, Advocate For the respondent (s) : XXXX Page No.# 4/7 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 25.04.2025 Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Bharali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners. 2. This is an application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 22.01.2025 passed in CRP(IO) No.361/2023. 3. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs have suppressed certain material facts while filing the plaint and this is a case of clever drafting, and as such, he submitted that the judgment and order dated 22.01.2025 passed in CRP(IO) No.361/2023 is required to be reviewed. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that after passing of the judgment sought to be reviewed the review petitioners had made enquiries before the concerned the Circle Officer and could find out that the plaintiffs were fully aware of the Deed of Sale as would be apparent from the application for mutation itself. 4. This Court has duly given an anxious consideration, but taking into account the well settled principles of law that while deciding Page No.# 5/7 an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), the Court is only required to look into the plaint along with the documents filed along with the plaint and nothing more, this Court cannot take the information which was divulged to the review petitioners pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court. The said aspect can only be taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court that too at the appropriate stage of the suit. 5. Under such circumstances, the question of exercising the review jurisdiction to the impugned judgment and order dated 22.01.2025 passed in CRP(IO) No.361/2023 do not arise. 6. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, finds it very pertinent to take note of the submission of Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners who submitted that on an absolutely false and fictitious cause of action being made, the petitioners who are the defendants in the suit would have to suffer the long ordeal of the suit. The said submission so made reminds this Court of the observation of His Lordship Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer J. (as he then was) in the case of T. Arvindanam vs. T. V. Satyapal and Another, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 wherein His Lordships at paragraph No.5 observed what measures can be taken to shoot down a bogus litigation in the case of clever drafting had created the illusion of a Page No.# 6/7 cause of action. Paragraph No.5 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:- “5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentently resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif’s Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful — not formal — reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr. XI) and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi: “It is dangerous to be too good.” Page No.# 7/7 7. Considering the above, this Court finds no ground to entertain the review petition for which the same stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant