08.07.2026 Court No.13 Item No.3 AP RVW 143 of 2022 With CAN 1 of 2022 With CAN 2 of 2022 With CAN 6 of 2026 Rohan Sarkar & Ors. Vs. Jayeeta Sarkar & Ors. (Pradip Kumar Sarkar since deceased) In SA 164 of 2016 Sri Rohan Sarkar & Anr. Vs. Sri Pradip Kumar Sarkar & Ors. Mr. Deepnath Roy Chowdhury Mr. Kaunish Chakraborti Mr. K.S. Haque Mr. Bhaskar Divedi Mr. Rajesh Nandy ... For the Review Applicants. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Senior Advocate Mr. Raju Bhattacharyya ... For the Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Re.: CAN 1 of 2022 In RVW 143 of 2022 1. CAN 1 of 2022 in RVW 143 of 2022 is an application for condonation of delay of 2409 days. 2. The delay of 2409 days is condoned in view of the fact that the original gift deed dated 15th January, 2003 was discovered belatedly and the review application was filed within 17 days of such discovery. 3. In view of the above CAN 1 of 2022 in RVW 143 of 2022 is allowed and disposed of. 2 Re.: RVW 143 of 2022 4. The coordinate Bench in its order dated 21st December, 2015 passed in SAT 234 of 2014 found that the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court had dismissed the suit filed by the defendants/appellants/review applicants inter alia on the ground that the original gift deed dated 15th January, 2003 could not be produced. There are other grounds on which the appeal was also dismissed. 5. Even when the Second Appeal was being considered for admission, the coordinate Bench felt that there was no substantial question of law involved since the original gift deed could not be traced out. 6. The applicants claim to have traced out the original gift deed dated 15th January, 2003 sometime in July 2022 and filed the application for review of the order dismissing the Second Appeal within 17 days thereafter. 7. The applicants also filed an application for substitution which is understandable. An application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed in aid of the review application. 8. Two vital ingredients entitle a person to avail the benefit of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Discovery of new and hitherto unavailable evidence that could have a vital impact on the appellants’ case. The second being error apparent on the face of record. 3 9. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents has argued that the benefit of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be availed only in aid of an appeal and not an aid of review. He has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Ors. reported in (2022) 17 SCC 255. 10. It is true that the applicants could have simpliciter annexed the traced out document in question to an application in aid of the application under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure and need not have resorted to Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. The very basis of the review application is the discovery of the hitherto untraceable gift deed. The applicants before this Court need not have resorted to an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They only needed to have produced the hitherto untraceable evidence and documents in aid of the review application under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. Since discovery of a new document and evidence is itself a ground for review under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is of the view that the applicants ought to be allowed to produce the original gift deed dated 15th January, 2003 before the Trial Court. 13. In that view of the matter, the decision of the lower Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.11 of 2012 dated 28th 4 February, 2014 and the judgement and decree of the Trial Court dated 22nd March, 2012 passed in Title Suit No.41 of 2007 (Pradip Kumar Sarkar and Ors. Vs. Rohan Sarkar and Anr.) shall stand set aside. 14. Title Suit No.41 of 2007 is restored to the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sadar, Cooch Behar. The trial shall recommence from the stage of the evidence being led by the parties afresh. 15. The applicants shall be entitled to file the said purported original gift deed dated 15th January, 2003 in the form of "Firisti" before the Trial Court. 16. The Trial Judge shall proceed to determine and decide the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of five months from the date of communication of a copy of this order. 17. It is made absolutely clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the rival contentions of the parties including the said purported original gift deed. The Trial Judge shall proceed to decide the matter independently, uninfluenced by any observations made hereinabove. 18. It is, however, made clear that the parties shall maintain status quo as regards the possession of the suit property and such order of status quo shall abide by the final result of Title Suit No.41 of 2007. 19. With the aforesaid observations, RVW 143 of 2022 is disposed of. Consequently, all connected pending applications are also disposed of. 5 20. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)