Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010027092026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/38/2026 RANJAN GHOSH S/O LATE NIREN GHOSH, R/O K.B. ROAD, JORHAT, P.O. AND P.S.- JORHAT, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785001 VERSUS NAKUL CHANDRA BARUAH S/O LATE RUPESWAR BARUAH, R/O CHARINGIA GAON, BARUA CHUCK, P.S.- PULIBAR, P.O.- JORHAT, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S J SARMAH, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. T J MAHANTA, MR T GOGOI,MR. A BORUA,MS. P BHATTACHARYA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 15-06-2026 1. Heard Mr. S. J. Sarmah, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 08.09.2025, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jorhat in Title Suit No. 82/2022, Page No.# 2/7 whereby the trial court declined to correct the judgment and decree by including the relief as prayed for by the present petitioner in his application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was registered as Petition No. 1189/2025. 3. The facts relevant for consideration on the instant revision petition, in brief, are that the present petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance of contract with regard to agreement dated 27.05.2019 executed between the plaintiff and the present respondent for sale of land which has been fully described in Schedule to the plaint. Apart from the aforesaid relief, the relief of permanent injunction, recovery of khas possession and declaring that if any agreement deed or writing executed by the defendant in favor of any other third person in respect of the suit property, either before filing of the title suit or after the said filing shall be treated as void ab initio. The aforesaid suit was registered as Title Suit No. 82/2022 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jorhat. The said suit proceeded ex-parte against the present respondent and by judgment dated 20.11.2023, the suit was decreed ex-parte against the present respondent. 4. By the aforesaid decree, it was held by the trial court that the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract for sale of suit land in terms of agreement dated 27.05.2019, subject to payment of the remaining consideration amount of Rs.2,27,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand) to the defendant within three months from the date of the judgment and on receipt of such balance amount, the present respondent was directed to execute registered sale deed in favor of the present petitioner in respect of the suit property. Page No.# 3/7 5. It was further directed that in the event of failure on the part of the defendant to execute the deed after receiving the remaining amount of Rs.2,27,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand), the plaintiff would be entitled to get the deed executed through the process of the court by depositing the amount in the court. 6. Apart from the aforesaid relief, a permanent injunction was also granted against the present respondent (defendant) on transferring the suit property to third party till execution of the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of execution of the ex-parte decree passed in favor of the present petitioner, it came to the notice of the present petitioner that the trial court has not included two reliefs which were prayed for by the present petitioner in his plaint, namely, (i) recovery of khas possession and (ii) a declaration to the effect that if any agreement or deed or writing executed by defendant in favor of any other third person in respect of suit property, either before filing of the present suit or after filing of the present suit and during its pendency, shall be treated as void ab initio and shall be a nullity and shall be liable to be cancelled. 8. He submits that after noticing the aforesaid omission from the judgment and decree which was passed in favor of the present petitioner, he approached the trial court again on 14th of May, 2025 by filing an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and pointed out about the omission made by the trial court in the ex-parte judgment and decree passed in favor of the present petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the Page No.# 4/7 petitioner pointed out that said omission might have been done by the trial court due to some typographical mistake or unintentional omission. However, by the impugned order dated 08.09.2025, the trial court rejected his prayer for inclusion of the reliefs which were excluded in the ex-parte judgment and decree on the ground that it would amount to incorporating new reliefs in the judgment as no discussion or decision on judicial side was made on the aforesaid reliefs. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief sought for by the petitioner in his petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may not be regarded as new reliefs as same were categorically stated in the plaint filed by the present petitioner. He submits that even in the impugned judgment, in Paragraph No. 1, the trial court also mentioned that the suit is for declaration of specific performance of contract, recovery of khas possession and for permanent injunction. However, it omitted to add the relief of recovery of khas of possession and declaration regarding any agreement or deed or writing executed by defendant during the pendency of this suit to be treated as void ab initio. He submits that the trial court, in the impugned order, has erred in holding that reliefs which were prayed to be incorporated by filing the application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are new relief. He submits that it is a settled law that in a suit for specific performance of contract under Specific Relief Act, 1963 in appropriate cases, where the plaintiff seeks the relief of recovery of possession, such relief should be granted, otherwise it would result into multiplicity of suits. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial court and directing the trial court to incorporate the relief which is prayed for by the present petitioner. Page No.# 5/7 11. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondent has submitted that the trial court has rightly rejected the application for incorporation of reliefs which were not granted in the ex-parte judgment by the trial court by exercising its powers under 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He submits that the trial court was correct in holding that since there was no discussion or decision as regards the entitlement of the reliefs, which the petitioner is praying for incorporating in the ex-parte judgment now, hence, same cannot be regarded as a mere typographical error, which can be rectified by exercising powers under Sections 152 or 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He submits that the correct approach would have been either to file a review application or to prefer an appeal and in both the cases, he submits that the law of limitation would have been applicable. 12. He submits that, in the instant case, the petitioner approached the trial court after about more than two years of passing of the ex-parte judgment for incorporating the reliefs which were omitted by the trial court. He submits that when the petitioner could have approached by filing a review application or an appeal against the ex-parte judgment for omitting the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in his plaint, the inherent power of the court cannot be exercised in such cases under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 13. He submits that exercising inherent power under such circumstances would be inconsistent with the express provision of the Code. He submits that the exercise of inherent power has to be made with due respect to the other provision of the Code. It exists to supplement the procedure not to override it. In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kanika and others”, reported Page No.# 6/7 in “MANU/SC/0184/2026”. 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record. 15. It appears that though the petitioner, as plaintiff, in the plaint filed by him in the Title Suit No. 82/2022 has prayed for reliefs of recovery of khas possession of the suit land after execution of the sale deed as well as also for a declaration that any agreement/deed/writing executed by the defendant either prior to filing of the suit or after filing of the suit or during the pendency of the suit to be treated as void ab initio. However, the trial court in its judgment dated 20.11.2023, passed in Title Suit No. 82/2022, has not made any discussion in respect of the said reliefs, neither granted any such relief as was prayed for. Hence, this cannot be regarded as a mere typographical error, which may be agitated by filing an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 16. The petitioner could have approached the trial court either by filing a review application or by preferring an appeal against the ex-parte judgment dated 20.11.2023 and in which case the law of limitation would have been made applicable to the said review petition/appeal. 17. This court does not find any error in the observation made by the trial court that since there is no discussion or decision on judicial side in the ex-parte judgment dated 20.11.2023 regarding the reliefs which were not granted to the petitioner by the said judgment, same cannot be rectified under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 18. The observations of the trial court that the Section 152 of Code of Civil Page No.# 7/7 Procedure, 1908 may also not be taken recourse to as same is to be utilized only in case of a correction of arithmetical error or errors arising out of accidental slips or omission, can not be regarded as erroneous. 19. In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court does not find this case to be appropriate case where supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be invoked by interfering in the impugned order. 20. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. 21. Parties to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant