Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010160442026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/370/2026 SANTANU KR. PAUL SON OF LATE NITYA NANDA PAUL, A RESIDENT OF LUKNATH PATH, HOUSE NO. 17, LALGANESH TINIALI, P.O.- ODALBAKRA, P.S.- FATASIL AMBARI, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI- 781034, ASSAM. VERSUS SHYAMAL KUMAR PAUL AND ANR SON OF LATE NITYA NANDA PAUL, RESIDENT OF NAMBARI, MALIGAON RAILWAY QUARTER NO. 22/A, P.O.- MALIGAON, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI- 781011, ASSAM, INDIA. 2:SANJOY KR. PAUL SON OF LATE NITYANANDA PAUL R/O LALGANESH TINIALI SANTI NAGAR PATH HOUSE NO. 1 GROUND FLOOR RANU VILLA (NEAR GRAMIN BANK) P.O.- ODALBAKRA DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 78103 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA, MR. N ALI,MR A HOSSAIN,MR G G GOGOI,MRS. K H CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S SHARMA (FOR CAVEATOR), Page No.# 2/3 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 17.08.2026 Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Sharma, the learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.07.2026 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No.67/2026 arising out of Probate Title Suit No.01/2017. 3. Mrs. Renuka Paul executed a Will in favour of her husband Nityananda Paul. After the death of Renuka Paul, Nityananda Paul filed an application in the court of the Addl. District Judge No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati seeking probate. Accordingly, Misc (Probate) Case No.11/2016 came into being. In that case, his three sons, namely, Shyamal Kumar Paul, Santanu Kumar Paul and Sanjay Kumar Paul were made the opposite parties. 4. At the time of hearing of the said petition, Nityananda Paul was cross-examined by his sons. 5. During pendency of said case, Nityananda Paul died. His son, Santanu Kumar Paul filed an application before the trial court requesting it to implead him as the petitioner in place of late Nityananda Paul. Accordingly, Misc.( J) Case No.67/2026 came into being. 6. The trial court refused the prayer of Santanu Kumar Paul and therefore, the Page No.# 3/3 present revision petition has been filed challenging the said order of the trial court. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the leaned counsels of both sides. 8. The trial court refused the prayer of Santanu Kumar Paul on the ground that he had challenged the genuineness of the Will and prayed for dismissal of the case filed by his deceased father. According to the trial court, Santnau Kumar Paul does not have any right to be impleaded as plaintiff as he has contested the case filed by his father. 9. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature. The main grounds on which the High Court interferes under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are – 1. When the inferior Courts act arbitrarily. 2. When the inferior Courts act in excess of the Jurisdiction vested in them. 3. When the inferior Courts fail to exercise jurisdiction vested in them. 10. It is pertinent to note that the High Court does not interfere for correcting mere error of facts or, with a finding of the subordinate court which is within the jurisdiction of such court. However, if, such finding is perverse in such a sense that no prudent person having the knowledge of law could have arrived at such finding, or the finding is not based on any material evidence or, such finding results in manifest injustice or if there is a misdirection in law then the High Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Coming back to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned order dated 04.07.2026. This order does not require interference of this Court. 12. This Court is of the opinion that the revision petition is devoid of any merit and stands dismissed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant