Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010178382026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/178/2026 SABUR ALI @ SABUR UDDIN AND ANR S/O LATE SORAB ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NO. 1 BLOCK KAWAIMARI RESERVE, MOUZA- PAKA, P.O.- BANGAON, P.S.- SARTHEBARI, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM. 2: MD. SARIF UDDIN S/O LATE SORAB ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NO. 1 BLOCK KAWAIMARI RESERVE MOUZA- PAKA P.O.- BANGAON P.S.- SARTHEBARI DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS MUNSER ALI AND 7 ORS. S/O LATE OMED ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NO. 1 BLOCK KAWAIMARI RESERVE, MOUZA- PAKA, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM. 2:MAHAR ALI S/O LATE OMED ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NO. 1 BLOCK KAWAIMARI RESERVE MOUZA- PAKA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM. 3:MOKSHED ALI S/O LATE OMED ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NO. 1 BLOCK KAWAIMARI RESERVE MOUZA- PAKA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM. Page No.# 2/5 4:MSST. ELESHA KHATUN D/O LATE OMED ALI W/O DANESH ALI R/O VILL- DATERGURI MOUZA- BHAWAWANI PUR DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 5:MSST. MEHERA NESSA W/O LATE OMED ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NO. 1 BLOCK KAWAIMARI RESERVE MOUZA- PAKA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM. 6:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY GA ASSAM 7:MSST. SARALA KHATOON D/O LATE OMED ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NO. 1 BLOCK KAWAIMARI RESERVE MOUZA- PAKA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM. 8:MSST. MAMATA BEGUM D/O LATE OMED ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NO. 1 BLOCK KAWAIMARI RESERVE MOUZA- PAKA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL, MR. A W MONDAL,MR A ALIM SK,MS. N NASRIN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 3/5 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 11.09.2026 Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Heard Mr. T.R. Gogoi, the learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the Respondent No.6. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.06.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.2, Barpeta, Assam in Misc.(J) Case No.310/2025 arising out of Title Execution Case No.53/20217. 3. The respondents being the decree holders, filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). This petition was registered as Misc.(J) Case No.310/2025. 4. The respondents being the decree holders obtained the decree of possessory right over the suit land. Opposite parties i.e. the present petitioners had dispossessed the respondents and occupied the suit land. The trial court directed that the decree holders are to be put back in possession over the suit land measuring 3 bighas having four distinct boundaries. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the present petitioners, i.e. the judgment debtors has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the merit of the impugned order. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 7. In Nandi Infrastructure Corridor ... vs B. Gurappa Naidu, reported in 2026 Page No.# 4/5 LiveLaw (SC) 445, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “33. This court in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. , has held that the power of the High Court in interfering with the order of the Court or Tribunal, would be restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. It has been further held: “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.” 34. This Court in a recent judgment of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, had an occasion to again deal with the exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and held that, High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction would not act as a Court of First Appeal. It was also held: “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Page No.# 5/5 Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” (Emphasis supplied).” 8. The scope and ambit of the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is now well settled. In exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction the High Court cannot act as an appellate court nor can it sit in appeal over the correctness of the orders passed by the courts and tribunals over which the High Court exercises the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have challenges the correctness of an order passed by the executing court and therefore in this case, the High Court cannot exercise its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this revision petition is without any merit and not maintainable in law. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in the motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant