Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010203132026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/182/2026 ABDUL MATIN AND 12 ORS SON OF ABDUL AZIZ, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL, P.O. MARJATKANDI, P.S. BADARPUR, DISTRICT SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN 788701, MOBILE NO. 9101281743 2: ABDUL JABBAR SON OF LATE SAMIN ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 3: SUNGUR ALI ON OF LATE SAMIN ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 4: SATTAR ALI SON OF LATE SAMIN ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 5: NOOR HUSSAIN SON OF LATE SAMIN ALI Page No.# 2/8 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 6: KHUDEJA BEGUM DAUGHTER OF SUNGUR ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 7: BANECHA BEGUM WIFE OF ABDUL JABBAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 8: AYESHA BEGUM WIFE OF NOOR HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 9: FULOI BIBI WIFE OF SATTAR ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 10: SUFIAN AHMED SON OF LATE MUSABBIR ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR Page No.# 3/8 DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 11: MOYFUL BIBI DAUGHTER OF LATE AMIN ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 12: GULJAR AHMED SON OF LATE MUSABBIR ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 13: JAKIR HUSSAIN SON OF ABDUL JABBAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 78870 VERSUS MD MORAI MIA AND 8 ORS SON OF LATE IRFAN ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL, P.O. MARJATKANDI, P.S. BADARPUR, DISTRICT SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN 788701 2:MUSSTT TERA KHATUN WIFE OF LATE FAIYAZ ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 3:HUSSAIN AHMED RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL Page No.# 4/8 P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 4:SUHAN AHMED RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 5:BAHAR UDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 6:NAZMA BEGUM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 7:SALMA BEGUM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 8:SAJNA BEGUM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788701 9:AIFUL BIBI WIFE OF LATE TOWAIR ALI Page No.# 5/8 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAIL P.O. MARJATKANDI P.S. BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 78870 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M H RAJBARBHUIYAN, MR B DEORI,MR G BHARADWAJ Advocate for the Respondent : , :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 18.09.2026 Heard Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29.06.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sribhumi in Misc. Appeal No.09/2022. 3. The respondents filed the Title Suit T.S. 188/2019 in the court of learned Munsiff No.3, Sribhumi against the present petitioners seeking a declaration that they are the owners of a plot of land i.e. the plot no.3 mentioned in the scheduled of the plaint. The respondents claimed that their predecessors had received the said plot of land in exchange of another plot of land which was given to their predecessors to the petitioners. In fact, this plot no.3 is used as a road to go to other plots of lands mentioned as plot no.1 and 2 in the schedule of the plaint. 4. The respondents filed the suit on an allegation that the petitioners have blocked the said road. Page No.# 6/8 5. The respondents filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an ad interim injunction. This petition was registered as Misc.(J) Case No.254/2019. The learned court of Munsiff No.3 rejected the said injunction petition. 6. Therefore, the respondents filed an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.09/2022 in the court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sribhumi. The learned appellate court while disposing of the appeal, directed both sides to maintain status quo in respect of the plot no.3. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the appellate court dated 29.06.2026, this revision petition has been filed praying for exercising the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. I have considered the submissions of Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan. 9. In Nandi Infrastructure Corridor v. B. Gurappa Naidu, reported in 2026 Live Law (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 Page No.# 7/8 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 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) 35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters is as follows: a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there Page No.# 8/8 has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals. b) 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. c) 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.” 10. The scope and ambit of the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is well settled. The High Court while exercising the law governing supervisory jurisdiction cannot act as an appellate court nor it can sit on appeal over correctness of the order passed by the court below. 11. The impugned order has no jurisdictional error for exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This revision petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant