Barsingh Kro vs The State Of Assam And 13 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2534 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010017112021




                         THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                           Case No. : CRP(IO)/13/2021

         BARSINGH KRO
         S/O. LT. SINGANGAT KRO, VILL. AMDANGA, MIKIR BAMUNI GRANT, P.O.
         BAMUNI, P.S. SAMAGURI, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 13 ORS
         REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND
         REHABILITATION DEPTT., SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

         2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER

          NAGAON
          DIST. NAGAON
          ASSAM.

         3:THE ADDL. DY. COMMISSIONER

          (REVENUE)
          NAGAON
          DIST. NAGAON
          ASSAM.

         4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER

          SAMAGURI REVENUE CIRCLE
          DIST. NAGAON
          ASSAM.

         5:THE LAT MANDAL

          SAMAGURI REVENUE CIRCLE
                                                         Page No.# 2/5

DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM.

6:AZURE POWER FORTY PVT. LTD.
 (A LEADING SOLAR POWER CO. IN INDIA) REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
 3RD FLOOR
ASSET 301-304 AND 307
WORLDMARK-3
AEROCITY
 NEW DELHI-110037.

7:MARAMI AIDEW
 D/O. LT. RAJANI KANTA GOHAIN
VILL. AMOLAPATTY
 BRINDABAN GOSWAMI ROAD
WARD NO.7
 NAGAON-MOUZA
 NAGAON TOWN
 REVENUE CIRCLE NAGAON SADAR
 DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM.

8:ANAMIKA GOHAIN
 D/O. LT. SARADA GOHAIN
VILL. AMOLAPATTY
 BRIDABAN GOSWAMI ROAD
WARD NO.7
 NAGAON-MOUZA
 NAGAON TOWN
 REVENUE CIRCLE NAGAON SADAR
 DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM.

9:GAYATRI GOHAIN
 D/O. LT. SARADA GOHAIN
VILL. AMOLAPATTY
 BRIDABAN GOSWAMI ROAD
WARD NO.7
 NAGAON-MOUZA
 NAGAON TOWN
 REVENUE CIRCLE NAGAON SADAR
 DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM.

10:PANKAJA AIDEW
 D/O. LT. RAJANI KANTA GOHAIN
VILL. AMOLAPATTY
 BRIDABAN GOSWAMI ROAD
                                Page No.# 3/5

WARD NO.7
NAGAON-MOUZA
NAGAON TOWN
REVENUE CIRCLE NAGAON SADAR
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM.

11:MINATI GOHAIN

D/O. LT. SARADA GOHAIN
VILL. AMOLAPATTY
BRIDABAN GOSWAMI ROAD
WARD NO.7
NAGAON-MOUZA
NAGAON TOWN
REVENUE CIRCLE NAGAON SADAR
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM.

12:ARATI AIDEW

D/O. LT. RAJANI KANTA GOHAIN
VILL. AMOLAPATTY
BRIDABAN GOSWAMI ROAD
WARD NO.7
NAGAON-MOUZA
NAGAON TOWN
REVENUE CIRCLE NAGAON SADAR
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM.

13:JITEN GOHAIN

S/O. LT. SARADA GOHAIN
VILL. PATHARQUARRY
VIP ROAD
WARD NO.52
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.

14:AARATI GOHAIN
W/O. LT. MUKUT GOHAIN
VILL. AMOLAPATTY
 BRIDABAN GOSWAMI ROAD
WARD NO.7
 NAGAON-MOUZA
 NAGAON TOWN
                                                                       Page No.# 4/5

             REVENUE CIRCLE NAGAON SADAR
             DIST. NAGAON
             ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR R SENSUA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                   BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

                                          ORDER

26.10.2021

Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G. Khandelia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6.

The petitioner has challenged by way of the instant proceedings the order dated 20.10.2020 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Nagaon in Misc(J) Case No. 33/2020 arising out of T.S. No. 46/2020 whereby in exercise of the powers under order XXXIX of Rule 4 the order of ex-parte adjudication passed on 08.10.2020 was vacated. An order passed under order XXXIX Rule 4 is appealable in terms of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & Ors. Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society & Ors. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 538 categorically holds in para 11 and 12 that in cases falling under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be taken as a total bar. Paragraph No. 12 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:-

Page No.# 5/5

"But courts should always bear in mind a distinction between (i) cases where such alternative remedy is available before Civil Courts in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil procedure, and (ii) cases where such alternative remedy is available under special enactments and/or statutory rules and the fora provided therein happen to be quasi-judicial authorities and tribunals. In respect of cases falling under the first category, which may involve suits and other proceedings before civil courts, the availability of an appellate remedy in terms of the provisions of CPC, may have to be construed as a near total bar. Otherwise, there is a danger that someone may challenge in a revision under Article 227, even a decree passed in a suit, on the same grounds on which the respondents 1 and 2 invoked the jurisdiction of the High court. This is why, a 3- member Bench of this Court, while overruling the decision in Surya Dev Rai vs.

Ram Chander Rai3, pointed out in Radhey Shyam V. Chhabi Nath 4 that "orders of civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts."

In view of the above the instant application is dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability.

The petitioner, is however, at liberty to file appropriate proceedings against the order dated 20.10.2020, if so advised.

The instant petition stands dismissed.

The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant