Amin Ali vs Abdul Jalil Laskar on 4 May, 2026

                                                                       Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010229972025




                                                                 undefined

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

                               Case No. : Review.Pet./259/2025

            AMIN ALI
            S/O LT. INCHAN ALI, VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I, P.S.-LALA,
            DISTHAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788163



            VERSUS

            ABDUL JALIL LASKAR
            S/O LATE MD. SAFIQUR RAHMAN LASKAR, VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PARTI,
            P.O.-RONGPUR SOUTH, P.S.-LALA, DIST-HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN 788163



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S K GHOSH, MS F AHMED

Advocate for the Respondent : MR M J QUADIR,
                                         Page No.# 2/10




Linked Case : Review.Pet./90/2020

ABDUL JALIL LASKAR
S/O LATE MD. SAFIQUR RAHMAN LASKAR
VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I
P.O.-RONGPUR SOUTH
P.S.-LALA
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN-788163


VERSUS

AMIN ALI AND 8 ORS.
S/O LT. INCHAN ALI
VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I
P.S.-LALA
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN-788163

2:MD. ABUL HUSSAIN LASKAR
S/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR
 ORIGINAL R/O VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I
 DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
 P/R/A VILL-BOLDABALDI (DARAPUR)
 P.S.-KATLICHERRA
 DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
 PIN-788161

3:MD. MAJBUL HUSSAIN LASKAR
S/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR
ORIGINAL R/O VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
P/R/A VILL-BOLDABALDI (DARAPUR)
P.S.-KATLICHERRA
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN-788161
                                                         Page No.# 3/10

4:MD. SABUL HUSSAIN LASKAR
S/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR
ORIGINAL R/O VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
P/R/A VILL-BOLDABALDI (DARAPUR)
P.S.-KATLICHERRA
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN-788161

5:MUSSTT. AFIYA BEGUM LASKAR
D/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR
ORIGINAL R/O VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
P/R/A VILL-BOLDABALDI (DARAPUR)
P.S.-KATLICHERRA
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN-788161

6:MUSSTT. SUFIARA BEGUM LASKAR
D/O ABDUL KADIR LASKAR
ORIGINAL R/O VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
P/R/A VILL-BOLDABALDI (DARAPUR)
P.S.-KATLICHERRA
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN-788161

7:STRIKE OUT.
VIDE HON'BLE COURT'S ORDER DTD. 02/09/2024 PASSED IN REVIEW
PETN.NO.90/2020.

8:MUSSTT. BILKIS SIDDIKA BEGUM LASKAR
D/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR
ORIGINAL R/O VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
P/R/A VILL-BOLDABALDI (DARAPUR)
P.S.-KATLICHERRA
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN-788161
                                                               Page No.# 4/10

9:MUSSTT. AFLATUN NESSA LASKAR
W/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR
ORIGINAL R/O VILL-MOHAMMODPUR PART-I
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
P/R/A VILL-BOLDABALDI (DARAPUR)
P.S.-KATLICHERRA
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN-788161
------------
Advocate for : MR M J QUADIR
Advocate for : MS F AHMED appearing for AMIN ALI AND 8 ORS.



Linked Case : RSA/150/2017

AMIN ALI
S/O LATE INCHAN ALI
VILL. MOHMMODPUR PT-I
P.S. LALA
DIST. HAILAKANDI


VERSUS

MD ABDUL JALIL LASKAR and 9 ORS
S/O MD. SAFIQUR RAHMAN LASKAR
VILL. MOHMMADPUR PT-I
P.S. LALA
DIST. HAILAKANDI
PIN CODE 788163

2:MD. ABUL HUSSAIN LASKAR

S/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR

3:MD. MAJBUL HUSSAIN LASKAR


4:MD. SABUL HUSSAIN LASKAR
S/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR

5:MUSSTT. AFIA BEGUM LASKAR
D/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR

6:MUSTT. SUFIARA BEGUM LASKAR
                                                             Page No.# 5/10

D/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR

7:MUSSTT. KHALIDA BEGUM LASKAR
D/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR

8:MUSSTT. BILKIS SIDDIKA BEGUM LASKAR
D/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR

9:MUSSTT. ALFATUN NESSA LASKAR
W/O LATE ABDUL KADIR LASKAR
ALL ARE ORIGINAL RESIDED
VILL. MOHMMADPUR PT-I
P.S. LALA
DIST. HAILAKANDI
AND PRESENTLY RESIDED OF VILL. BOLDABALDI DARAPUR
P.S. KATLICHERRA
DIST. HAILAKANDI
PIN 788161
------------
Advocate for : MS.F AHMED
Advocate for : MR.B BANERJEE appearing for MD ABDUL JALIL LASKAR and 9
ORS



Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/3799/2025

ABDUL JALIL LASKAR
SON OF LATE MD. SHAFIQUR RAHMAN LASKAR MVILL- MOHAMMODPUR
PART-I
 P.O. RONGPUR SOUTH
 P.S. LALA
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM-788163.


VERSUS

AMIN ALI
S/O LATE INCHAN ALI

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOHAMMODPUR PART I
PS LALA
DIST HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
788163

2:SHAJAHAN LASKAR
                                                                     Page No.# 6/10

          S.J LASKAR
          ADVOCATE NOTARY PUBLIC AT HAILAKANDI
          HAILAKANDI BAR ASSOCIATION
          HAILAKANDI
          DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE
          HAILAKANDI COURT COMPLEX 788151
          ------------
          Advocate for : MR M J QUADIR
          Advocate for : MR. S K GHOSH appearing for AMIN ALI



                                BEFORE
              HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

                                      ORDER

Date : 04.05.2026

1. Heard Mr. S. K. Ghosh the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. K. Hannan, the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This application under Order 47 read with Section 114 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the applicant, seeking corrections in the judgment and order dated 15.09.2025, passed by this Court in Review Petition No. 90/2020.

3. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Review Petition No. 90/2020 was filed by the present respondent under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the order dated 26.06.2020 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prasanta Kumar Deka, since retired) in I.A.(C) No. 974/2020.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid review petition (Review Petition No. 90/2020) was allowed by this Court, however, instead of vacating the order dated 26.06.2020 passed in I.A.(C) No. 974/2020 and restoring the said Interlocutory Application for re-hearing, in the operative portion of the aforesaid order i.e., in paragraph No. 21, it was stated that the impugned order dated Page No.# 7/10

26.06.2020 passed in I.A.(C) No. 974/2020 is reversed and the said Interlocutory Application is, accordingly, dismissed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions contained in Order 47 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in event of allowing a review petition, the order under review has to be vacated and a date has to be fixed for rehearing of the matter, in which the order under review has been passed.

6. He submits that in paragraph No. 21 of the order dated 15.09.2025 passed in Review Petition No. 90/2020, the word "reversed" and the word "dismissed" are due to accidental slips made by this Court. He submits that in place of the word "reversed", the word "vacated" ought to have been used and in place of the word "dismissed", the word "restored" ought to have been used.

7. He further submits that though there is a bar under Order 47 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against further review of an order passed in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, however, there is no bar in rectifying clerical error, arithmetical error, or an error, which has occurred due to accidental slip. Hence, he submits that though, this application was filed by the present petitioner under Order 47 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the ends of justice, it may be treated as an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the accidental slip, which has crept in the paragraph No. 21 of the aforesaid order may be rectified.

8. He submits that it is a settled proposition of law that in event of Page No.# 8/10

allowing of a review petition, the order under review has to be vacated and the case in which the order under review has been passed has to be restored for the purpose of rehearing of the matter. He further submits that the provision under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of "Jayalakshmi Coelho Vs. Oswald Joseph Coelho" reported in (2001) 4 SCC 181 that in

terms of the Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, any error occurred in decree on account of arithmetical or clerical error or accidental slip may be rectified by the Court.

9. On the other hand, Mr. A. K. Hannan, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that there is a clear bar in Order 47 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding any application to review an order made on an application for review or decree or order passed or made in a review.

10. He submits that the rectification, which is sought for by the present petitioner will touch upon the merit of the case and if allowed it would not be confined to any clerical and arithmetical error. He submits that the scope of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, even if it is interpreted liberally would allow the Court to rectify clerical and arithmetical mistakes and would not contemplate passing an effective judicial order touching upon the merit of the case after passing of the decree. He submits that after passing of the judgment and decree or order the Court becomes functus officio.

11. He submits that even if there is any error in the order dated 15.09.2025 in Review Petition No. 90/2020, the appropriate remedy is to file an appropriate application before higher court and not before this Page No.# 9/10

Court. In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of "Dwaraka Das Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another" reported in (1999) 3 SCC 500.

12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions.

13. On perusal of the judgment and order dated 15.09.2025 passed in Review Petition No. 90/2020, it appears that the said judgment and order is a detailed judgment and order giving reasons for allowing the aforesaid review petition, however it appears that while allowing the review petition, this Court in paragraph No. 21 of the said judgment had directed that the order under review i.e., order dated 26.06.2020 passed in the I.A.(C) No. 974/2020 is reversed and the Interlocutory Application was dismissed, which is apparently an error contrary to the provisions contained in Order 47 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

14. This Court is of considered opinion that as to what would happen if a review petition is allowed has been provided for in the statute itself, the provisions contained in Order 47 Rule 8 very categorically states that in the event of allowing of a review petition, a note thereof shall be made in the register and Court may at once rehear the case or make such an order as regards to rehearing of the case it thinks fit. Thus, there is no doubt in the legal position that in the event of allowing of a review petition, the matter, in which the order under review has been passed has to be reheard.

15. This Court regards the words "reverse" and dismissed" used in Page No.# 10/10

paragraph No. 21 of the order dated 15.09.2025 to be an accidental slip, which is required to be rectified.

16. Since there is a bar provided under Order 47 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in filing an application for review of an order passed in a review petition, this Court is treating the Interlocutory Application as an application under Section 151 read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 instead of an application under Order 47 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

17. The Registry to re-register this case as an Interlocutory Application under Section 151 read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 instead of review application.

18. In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the error occasioned due to accidental slip in paragraph No. 21 of the judgment and order dated 15.09.2025 passed in Review Petition No. 90/2020 is hereby rectified and the word "reversed" in paragraph No. 21 of the aforesaid order shall be read as "vacated" and the word "dismissed" used in the same paragraph shall be read as "restored".

19. Accordingly, the I.A.(C) No. 974/2020 is, hereby, restored.

20. The Registry to list the said I.A.(C) No. 974/2020 for re-hearing on 20.05.2026.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant