Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010183462024 2026:GAU-AS:11879 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/379/2024 DHIMAN GUPTA AND 2 ORS. S/O- LATE CHITTARANJAN GUPTA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SULTANATE OF OMAN, MUSCAT, P.O. BOX 252, P.C. 100. 2: SHANTANU GUPTA S/O- LATE CHITTARANJAN GUPTA R/O- SACRED HEART PALLIATIVE CARE CENTRE P.O. JORABAT (GUWAHATI) PIN- 781022. 3: SMT. SHARMILA DAS GUPTA W/O- SRI SWAPAN KUMAR GUPTA D/O- LATE CHITTARANJAN GUPTA R/O- A/1004 ANAND RESIDENCY KOTHRUD PUNE PIN- 411038 VERSUS SHYAMAL DUTTA S/O- LATE BALARAM DUTTA, R/O- BORPOTHAR ROAD, WARD NO. 14 OF TINSUKIA TOWN, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN- 786125. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D KALITA, MS R KOUR Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A R SHOME, MR A J GHOSH Page No.# 2/3 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 19.08.2026 Heard D. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A.R. Some, the learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.07.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.2, Tinsukia in T.S. 24/2019. 3. On 03.05.2024, the trial court initially framed three preliminary issues and subsequently framed another such additional issue as to whether the court has jurisdiction to try the instant suit. 4. Subsequently, the learned judge was transferred from Tinsukia. On 06.07.2024, the new judge disagreed with the previous judge on the ground that the preliminary issues framed by the previous judge, are mixed issues on law and fact and therefore, they cannot be decided as preliminary issues. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision has been filed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 7. 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. Page No.# 3/3 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. 8. 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. 9. Coming back to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order. This Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court, therefore, holds that the present petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant