Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010164692019 2026:GAU-AS:13063 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./124/2019 SMTI. GEETA CHANGKAKOTI AND 4 ORS. W/O- LATE RAJESH CHANGKAKOTI. 2: SMTI. RINCHA CHANGKAKOTI D/O- LATE RAJESH CHANGKAKOTI. 3: SMTI. KUHINA CHANGKAKOTI D/O- LATE RAJESH CHANGKAKOTI. 4: SMTI. NIKITA CHANGKAKOTI D/O- LATE RAJESH CHANGKAKOTI. 5: MASTER BISHNU DEV CHANGKAKOTI (MINOR) S/O- LATE RAJESH CHANGKAKOTI ALL ARE RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 8 NORTH LAKHIMPUR TOWN P.O. AND P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787001 VERSUS SHRI JAGAN CHANGKAKOTI @ JITU AND ANR S/O- LATE KHAGENDRA NATH CHANGKAKOTI, R/O- WARD NO. 8, NORTH LAKHIMPUR TOWN, P.O. AND P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 787001. 2:SHRI KAMAL CHANGKAKOTI @ KUKUMONI S/O- LATE KHAGENDRA NATH CHANGKAKOTI R/O- WARD NO. 8 NORTH LAKHIMPUR TOWN P.O. AND P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR Page No.# 2/8 DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K PURKAYASTHA, MR. S SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : MR H K SARMA (R-1), MR B D DAS (R-1),MS B B HUSSAIN (R- 1) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 07.09.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. H.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This review petition under Section 114 CPC read with Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC is directed against the order dated 13.09.2018, passed by this Court in I.A.(C) No.2476/2018, arising out of FAO/29/2018 and for recall of the order dated 13.09.2018 by which FAO/29/2018 was disposed of. 3. Although, several issues are raised in this review petition which apart from 40 paragraphs, includes ground nos. (a) to (q), but as per order dated 16.06.2026, the Court had recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he may be permitted to raise an oral plea regarding properties described in Schedule C, D and E, the dispute which regarding settlement has not been recorded in the mediation agreement. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FAO/29/2018, was disposed of by order dated 13.09.2018 on the basis of Page No.# 3/8 mediation agreement dated 10.09.2018 and accordingly, in view of settlement of the dispute, this Court had directed the learned Trial Court i.e., the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur to record the settlement in the suit and shall to draw up a decree in terms of the mediation agreement. To facilitate the same, the parties were directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on the date fixed, and by filing an application, to enable the learned Trial Court to dispose of the suit on compromise and draw up a decree accordingly. 5. The learned senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that pursuant to directions contained in the order dated 13.09.2018, passed in FAO/29/2018, the proceedings of Title Suit No. 10/2018, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur was disposed of by drawing up a decree dated 09.06.2026. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that when the mediation proceeding took place, the petitioner could bring to the notice of this Court or before the learned Trial Court about the existence of an agreement for family settlement which was made in the year 1981. It is submitted that the respondent side had referred to deed of family settlement of 1982, but deed of family settlement of the year 1981 was suppressed. Accordingly, it is submitted that when the mediation agreement was drawn up, the properties which were described in Schedule Nos. C, D and E of the plaint were left out from the settlement during the mediation proceedings. Accordingly, it is submitted that all the disputes of the parties were not settled in respect of Schedule C, D and E properties in mediation. Accordingly, it is submitted the order of this Court dated 13.09.2018, passed by this Court be recalled and the matter be sent for mediation afresh. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that Page No.# 4/8 all the parties were not the signatories to the settlement arrived at during mediation. 7. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that as per his instructions, the petitioner had represented herself and two others and all the other parties were personally present and had duly signed the mediation agreement. Accordingly, it is submitted that the mediation agreement was binding between all the parties to this review petition, who were also parties in FAO/29/2018. It has been submitted that by way of the mediation settlement agreement, the suit was disposed of and accordingly, once a decree has been drawn up in the suit, the present review petition would not be maintainable as the final order passed in FAO/29/2018, had been given effect to. It is further submitted that this Court had required the respondents to address the Court as to why the properties described in Schedule C, D and E were left out and accordingly, it is submitted that the respondents, with due regard to the desire of the Court, had filed an objection in this review petition wherein reasons as to why the properties described in Schedule C, D and E were left out has been explained. However, it is submitted that there were good reasons for the said property to be left out. Accordingly, it is submitted that the mediation agreement was lawful, and no ground for review has been made out. In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel for the respondents has cited the case of Charulata Beura and Anr. Vs. Ranjana Pradhan & Ors., CMP No. 1133/2024, decided by Single Judge of the Orissa High Court on 24.10.2025. 8. Considered the submissions made at the bar and also considered the case law cited by the learned senior counsel for the respondents. 9. It is evident from the Mediation Settlement Agreement dated Page No.# 5/8 10.09.2018, that the learned Mediator had held joint as well as single sessions with both the parties and both sides had held negotiations and after negotiations, both the parties agreed to settle their disputes on the terms and conditions as contained in the said agreement. As per the contents of the said mediation agreement dated 10.09.2018, the settlement is recorded only in respect of the properties described in Schedule A and B of the plaint. 10. While the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in this review petition were not the learned counsel who was present in the mediation proceedings. The learned counsel for the review petitioner would not be know as to what had transpired in the mediation sittings and negotiations held during the mediation process. Therefore, when the learned counsel for the respondents, who is the learned instructing counsel for the senior counsel for the respondents and was present in the Mediation proceeding has submitted that there were reasons to leave out properties described in Schedule C, D and E, the said statement must be given some weight. 11. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sow. Chandra & Anr. v. Sheikh Hasib, AIR 1975 SC 1500 had deprecated the practice of review being filed by another set of counsel. The said decision has been followed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of West Bengal v. Jai hind Pvt. Ltd., 2026 ISNC 132: (2026) 0 Supreme (SC) 144. 12. In this case, the mediation agreement was made on 10.09.2018. The original agreement is available in the records of I.A.(C) 2476/2018 in FAO/29/2018, which is attached to the order dated 10.09.2018, passed by the Deputy Secretary, Gauhati High Court Mediation Centre in connection with Mediation Case No.32/2018. As per page no.7 thereof, which is inadvertently not filed in this review petition, it appears that following were the signatories:- Page No.# 6/8 i. Kamal Kumar Changkakoti (applicant/ respondent no.2). ii. Geeta Changkakoti on behalf of herself and on behalf of applicant nos. 2, 4 and 5 (appellant no.1). iii. Kuhina Changkakoti (appellant no.3). iv. Utpala Changkakoti, who is stated to be not a party to the proceedings and the said agreement was also signed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents and also signed by the learned mediator. 13. The said mediation agreement (in original) was placed before this Court in connection with I.A.(C)/2476/2018 and the same was laid before this Court when the matter was next listed on 13.09.2018. On 13.09.2018, the proceedings of FAO/29/2018 was closed and the learned Trial Court was requested to draw up a decree. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents has produced a photocopy of the certified copy of the order dated 09.06.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in T.S. No. 10/2018, by which the suit was decreed on compromise as it stands in the mediation settlement agreement dated 10.09.2018, passed in FAO/29/2018 and I.A. (C)/2476/2018. Therefore, on and from 13.09.2018 till 17.07.2019, when the review petition was filed, no objection whatsoever was raised for questioning the mediation agreement. During the pendency of the review petition, in the presence of the learned counsel for the contesting parties, the learned Trial Court had passed the order dated 09.06.2026 and the suit was decreed on Page No.# 7/8 compromise. Therefore, as the mediation agreement has been given effect to and there is nothing on record to show that the said agreement dated 10.09.2018 was vitiated by fraud, or signed by the parties under threat, or coercion and when the same appears to have been duly prepared and signed by the appearing parties, mere objection that properties described in Schedule C, D and E have been left out would not constitute a good ground to interfere with the order dated 13.09.2018, passed in FAO/29/2018 and I.A(C)/2476/2018. Consequently, the decree dated 09.06.2026, drawn up in accordance with the mediation settlement agreement dated 10.09.2018 as passed in FAO/29/2018, does not call for any interference. 15. It may be stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner had made his submission to the effect that there were other un-registered agreements of family settlements which could not have been taken note of or considered. However, in this regard, the Court is of the considered opinion that the said submission is outside the scope of the review jurisdiction of this Court as those agreements do not appear in the Mediation Settlement Agreement and therefore, the scope of review jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by making reference to anything which is beyond the scope and ambit of the said Mediation Settlement Agreement dated 10.09.2018. Moreover, the review petitioner was the plaintiff in the suit, but the learned counsel for the petitioners could show that the plaint contained any pleading or any unregistered Deed of Family Settlement. 16. Accordingly, the present review petition fails and the same is dismissed. 17. Before parting with the records, it is reiterated that although the review petition runs into 51 (fifty one) pages with 40 (forty) paragraphs and grounds (a) to (p), but the learned counsel for the petitioner had sought for and granted Page No.# 8/8 permission to raise oral plea regarding Schedule C, D and E for which no settlement was made in the mediation agreement vide order dated 16.06.2026. Hence, there is no necessity to deal with any other statements or grounds of this review petition. It is also stated that had the order dated 16.06.2026 not been passed, then the Court would have required a very long and elaborate hearing to find out error apparent on the record, which could be done in exercise of review jurisdiction. JUDGE Comparing Assistant