Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010211162026 2026:GAU-AS:14568 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/192/2026 JAYANTA KUMAR S/O LATE DHANI RAM KUMAR, R/O GOTANAGAR, P.O.- MALIGAON, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS MD. SHAFIQUL ISLAM AND 3 ORS. S/O LATE JABEDUR RAHMAN, R/O HATIGAON, GUWAHATI- 38, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. 2:ASHINDAR SINGH S/O LATE SUJAN SINGH R/O S.S. ROAD FANCY BAZAR P.S.- PAN BAZAAR GUWAHATI- 01 3:PRANAB KR GHOSH S/O PRADYUT KUMAR GHOSH R/O SONY APARTMENT BORTHAKUR MILL ROAD GUWAHATI-01 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI PIN- 781032 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P C DEY, MR BASAB DEY,MR. K KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 30.09.2026 Heard Mr. P.C. Dey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This is a petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.07.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No.511/2024 arising out of Title Appeal No.04/2024. 3. The respondent filed the suit T.S. 366/2022 in the court of Munsiff No.4, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati against the present petitioner and the State of Assam. 4. The respondent was directed by the trial court to take steps for issuing notice to the present petitioner but the respondent did not take any steps for service of notice upon them. Thereafter, the respondent published the notice upon the present petitioner in two local newspapers. 5. On 17.08.2022, the Presiding Officer of the court was on leave and on 09.11.2022, the Shirastadar of the court of Munsiff No.4, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati wrote an order directing the case to proceed ex parte against the present petitioner. 6. Finally, the suit of the respondent was decreed as prayed for. 7. After some delay, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati. The appeal was registered as T.A. 04/2024. 8. Along with the memo of appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 3(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed and this application was registered as Misc.(J) Page No.# 3/4 Case No.511/2024. 9. On 27.07.2026, the learned appellate court condoned the delay and directed that the appeal should be proceeded with. 10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this revision petition has been filed. 11. The only ground pleaded by the petitioner is that the decree passed in Title Suit No.366/2022 has already been executed. Mr. Dey has submitted that the impugned order has allowed reopening of a case that was finally disposed of with a successful execution. 12. I have considered the submission of Mr. Dey. 13. This Court is of the opinion that at this stage, a brief visit to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be fruitful. It reads as under: “115. Revision .- (1)The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears- (a)to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b)to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c)to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:[Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.] (2)[ The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. Page No.# 4/4 (3)[ A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court.] [Inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, Section 43 (w.e.f. 1.2.1977).] Explanation .-In this section, the expression, "any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding.] 14. Like Article 227 of the Constitution of India, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction upon sub-ordinate courts. Now, the question arises as to whether the learned appellate court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by laws or whether the appellate court had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it or whether the appellate court had acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In those circumstances, High Court is entitled to interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. A regular first appeal is a valuable right of a litigant. The learned court below has passed a reasoned order. A Shirastadar of a civil court does not have the power to write an order directing a case to proceed ex parte against the defendant of the suit. This is the reason why the learned appellate court condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not require any interference of this Court. 16. This Court hereby holds that this is not a fit case for exercising the power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant