Gauhati High Court
7: Dabokai Devi vs On The Death Of Sadhiram Das His Legal ... on 6 February, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010159702022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./8/2025
ON THE DEATH OF GOBINDA DAS HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS.
NAMELY-
1.1: DHARESHWARI DAS
D/O LATE GOBINDA DAS
R/O NO.2
MATHGHARIA
NEAR FLYOVER
P.S.- NOOMATI
GUWAHATI- 20
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
1.2: CHAKRESHWAR DAS
S/O LATE GOBINDA DAS
R/O NO.2
MATHGHARIA
NEAR FLYOVER
P.S.- NOOMATI
GUWAHATI- 20
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM.
1.3: BHARTI DAS
D/O LATE GOBINDA DAS
R/O TARTOLA
SATHGAON
P.S.- SATHGAON
GUWAHATI- 26
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
1.4: AARATI DEVI
D/O LATE GOBINDA DAS
R/O NO.2
MATHGHARIA
NEAR FLYOVER
P.S.- NOOMATI
GUWAHATI- 20
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM.
1.5: AIKAN DEVI
D/O LATE GOBINDA DAS
R/O NO.2
MATHGHARIA
NEAR FLYOVER
P.S.- NOOMATI
GUWAHATI- 20
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM.
1.6: JAGANNATH DAS
S/O LATE GOBINDA DAS
R/O NO.2
MATHGHARIA
NEAR FLYOVER
P.S.- NOOMATI
GUWAHATI- 20
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
1.7: DABOKAI DEVI
D/O LATE GOBINDA DAS
VILL.- GAYASPUR
DIST.- SIWAN
BIHAR
PIN- 841210
VERSUS
ON THE DEATH OF SADHIRAM DAS HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS.
NAMELY-
1.1:DIBAKAR DAS
S/O LATE SAHIRAM DAS
R/O NO. 2
Page No.# 3/5
MATHGHARIA
P.S.- NOOMATI
GUWAHATI- 20
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM.
1.2:NARAYAN DAS
S/O LATE SAHIRAM DAS
R/O NO. 2
MATHGHARIA
P.S.- NOOMATI
GUWAHATI- 20
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM.
1.3:BHAIGYA DAS
W/O LATE SAHIRAM DAS
R/O NO. 2
MATHGHARIA
P.S.- NOOMATI
GUWAHATI- 20
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM.
1.4:KALPANA HALOI
D/O LATE SAHIRAM DAS
R/O NO. 2
MATHGHARIA
P.S.- NOOMATI
GUWAHATI- 20
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM.
1.5:RITA HALOI
D/O LATE SAHIRAM DAS
R/O NO. 2
MATHGHARIA
P.S.- NOOMATI
GUWAHATI- 20
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM.
1.6:ZONALI DAS
D/O LATE SAHIRAM DAS
R/O NO. 2
MATHGHARIA
P.S.- NOOMATI
GUWAHATI- 20
Page No.# 4/5
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. V. Rai, Advocate
: Ms. P. Dey, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : None appears.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 06.02.2025
An application for review would lie inter alia when the order suffers
from any error on the face of the record and permitting the same to
continue would lead to failure in justice. The power to review can also be
exercised by the Court in the event of discovery of new and important
matter or evidence takes place which despite exercise of due diligence
was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced
by him at the time when the order was made. An application for review
would also lie if the order has been passed on account of some mistake.
Furthermore, an application for review shall also lie for any other
sufficient reason.
2. The instant review application has been filed on the ground that Mr.
S. P. Roy, Advocate was not present when the matter was called up for
hearing. It is relevant to take note of that the judgment and order which
have been sought to be reviewed was in respect to a Regular Second
Appeal bearing No.149/2007 which arises out of a suit filed in the year
1991 and thereupon an appeal filed in the year 2003. It is further
Page No.# 5/5
relevant to take note of that on 19.04.2022 when the matter was called,
the Appellants did not appear. However, for the ends of justice, this Court
had adjourned the matter to be taken up on 26.04.2022 making it clear
that if the appellant failed to appear on the next date, this Court would
dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
3. On the day when the matter was called for, the counsel for the
appellants one Mr. B. Das, Advocate was duly present and he was heard.
The submission so made by the learned counsel for the Applicant is that
if Mr. S. P. Roy, the learned counsel would have appeared, he would have
submitted better arguments and as such the judgment and order passed
by this Court on 26.04.2022 is required to be reviewed. It is a well
settled principle that merely because another counsel would have
submitted better arguments cannot be a ground for review. In addition to
that, this Court had also asked the learned counsel for the Applicant as to
what additional submission he would have made. The learned counsel
only submitted that the ground of review sought for is on the ground that
he could not appear on the earlier occasion. The same would not fall
within the permissible limits of a review jurisdiction for which the instant
review application stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
