M/S Assam (Trade) Agencies vs Sujauddin Ahmed

Page No. 1/13
GAHC010113182026

2026:GAU-AS:16051

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./97/2026
M/S ASSAM (TRADE) AGENCIES
S.R.C.B. ROAD, FANCY BAZAR, GUWAHATI - 781001,
KAMRUP (M), ASSAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, YASHPAL CHACHRA.
VERSUS
SUJAUDDIN AHMED
SON OF LATE SAADUDDIN AHMED,
RESIDENT OF S.S. ROAD, LAKHTOKIA,
GUWAHATI - 781001, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
For the Petitioner : Ms. B. S. Goyal, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. A. Tewari, Advocate


Date of Hearing : 20.08.2026
Date of Judgment : 03.11.2026

Page No. 2/13
JUDGMENT & ORDER
1. Heard Ms. B. S. Goyal, the learned counsel for the review petitioner.
Also heard Mr. A. Tewari, the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, M/s
Assam (Trade) Agencies, seeking review of the judgment and order passed by
this Court on 04.05.2026 in Civil Revision Petition No. 97/2019.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of this review petition, in brief, are
that the present respondent, namely, Sujauddin Ahmed, had filed a title suit
against the present petitioner in the Court of learned Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup
(Metro) at Guwahati, seeking eviction of the present petitioner from the suit
premises on the basis of bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the
present respondent for starting a business there. The said suit was registered as
Title Suit No. 185/2013. The suit was contested by the present petitioner.
However, the said suit was decreed by the Trial Court by its judgment dated
25.11.2016 by holding that the suit premises is required bona fide by the
present respondent.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the
present petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division) No. 3, Kamrup (Metro). The said appeal was registered as Title Appeal
No. 120/2016. The said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court by its
th
judgment dated 28 June, 2019 and the decree passed by the Trial Court was

Page No. 3/13
upheld.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate Court, the
present petitioner approached this Court by filing an application under Section
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Said revision petition was registered
as CRP No. 97/2019. However, this Court by its judgment dated 04.05.2026 had
dismissed the revision petition filed by the present petitioner and upheld the
judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court by holding that the
judgment of the first appellate Court cannot be regarded as perverse and the
said Court also does not appear to have committed any jurisdictional error
warranting invoking of the powers of this Court under Section 115 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908.
6. Now, the instant review application has been filed by the petitioner
seeking review of the aforesaid judgment on following grounds. The said
grounds are specifically mentioned in paragraph No. 23 of the instant review
application:
A. Because material admission of the plaintiff touching upon the issue of
bona fide requirement escaped consideration.
B. Because absence of any preparation or concrete steps for
commencement of business had direct bearing on genuineness of alleged
requirement.
C. Because the plaintiff’s admission regarding monetary demand and
enhancement dispute were relevant circumstances affecting the issues of
bona fide requirement.
D. Because non-mention of bona fide requirement in contemporaneous
documents and earlier proceedings was relevant circumstances requiring

Page No. 4/13
consideration.
E. Because the defence case regarding coercive enhancement of rent and
retaliatory eviction proceedings was not examined in its proper
perspective.
F. Because non-consideration of material evidence apparent on record has
resulted in grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice.

G. Because the judgment under review therefore warrant reconsideration
in exercise of review jurisdiction.
7. Though, seven grounds as stated in paragraph No. 23 (A) to (G) have
been specifically mentioned in the review application by the present petitioner,
however, during oral argumentat the time of hearing of instant review petition
before this Court, Ms. B. S. Goyal, the learned counsel for the review petitioner,
has emphasized mainly on one ground, that is, the Trial Court as well as the
First Appellate Court and this Court, have failed to take into consideration that
the suit filed by the respondent is barred by non-joinder of necessary parties.
She submits that in that respect, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court have not considered the material evidence, namely, Exhibit Nos.-Z20 to
Z47, which are the electricity bills in respect of the suit premises, and which
indicates that the electricity charges in respect of the suit premises were
collected from the present petitioner by the brother of the present respondent,
namely, Salauddin Ahmed.
8. She submits that the present respondent, as plaintiff in the suit, has
failed to produce any deed of partition between his brother and himself in
respect of the suit property, and as such, Md. Salauddin Ahmed was a necessary

Page No. 5/13
party to the suit, and all the Courts have failed to take this vital aspect into
consideration. As such, she submits that the suit is barred by non-joinder of
necessary parties, and the said aspect is required to be reconsidered after
reviewing the judgment passed by this Court in CRP No. 97/2019 on
04.05.2026.
9. The learned counsel for the review petitioner has also submitted that
the main bone of contention between the parties is with regard to the increase
in rent of the suit premises. She submits that whereas the respondent has
spiked the rent exorbitantly, the present petitioner is still ready to give the
enhanced rent at the rate of 10% increase over the previous rent, and same
dispute may be amicably settled between them. She, however, submits that
since the material evidence in the form of Exhibit-Z20 to Z47 were not at all
considered by either the appellate Court or the trial Court or by the revisional
Court, it is a fit case to review the judgment passed in civil revision petition by
this Court.
10. On the other hand, Mr. A. Tewari, the learned counsel for the
respondent, has submitted that this review application has been filed by the
petitioner only with a mala fide intention of delaying the execution of the decree
which has been passed in favour of the respondent. He submits that the
petitioner has been able to protract the litigation from the year 2013 till this
date on one or another pretext. He submits that no ground for review of the
judgment dated 04.05.2026, passed by this Court in CRP No. 97/2019, has been
made out by the petitioner.
11. He submits that the property in which the suit premises is situated has
been amicably partitioned between the respondent and his brother, and this fact

Page No. 6/13
is known to the present petitioner. As such, he also used to deposit rent in
respect of suit premises in the name of present respondent only. He submits
that the brother of the respondent used to collect the electricity charges as the
electric meter was in the common name; however, that does not affect the
merit of the respondent's suit, and said aspect has been taken into
consideration by the Trial Court.
12. He submits that bare perusal of rent deposit challans, which has been
exhibited by the present petitioner before the trial Court, it would be clear that
all the rents in respect of the suit premises were deposited by the present
petitioner in the name of the respondent, Sri Sujauddin Ahmed only, and as
such, the question of non-joinder of necessary party loses its relevance.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent, further submits that the fact
that the present petitioner is the tenant in respect of the suit premises under
the land-lordship of the present respondent has been asserted by the present
petitioner himself in a title suit filed by him before the Court of learned Munsiff
No. 2 at Guwahati, which was registered as Title Suit No. 462/2012. He submits
that the said suit was filed by the present petitioner against the present
respondent only, and wherein he sought relief against eviction from the suit
premises; and said suit was decreed by the trial Court by its judgment dated
29.08.2015. He submits that in the said judgment, the Trial Court, in paragraph
No. 10 of the said judgment, has acknowledged that the fact that the present
petitioner had filed the said suit seeking declaration to the effect that he is a
bona fide tenant against the present respondent, and he cannot be evicted
therefrom without following due procedure of law, and said suit was accordingly
decreed also.

Page No. 7/13
14. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that once the petitioner
has accepted the present respondent as his landlord in the suit filed by himself
before the trial Court, he cannot take a contrary stand, that too in a review
petition, only with a motive of delaying the execution of the decree.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the trial
Court, while deciding Issue No. 2 as to whether the suit is bad for non-joinder
of necessary parties, has discussed the relevant materials on record and come
to the finding that since the present respondent is admittedly the landlord of the
tenanted premises, hence the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties. He submits that the said finding has not been challenged in the appeal
preferred by the present petitioner against the judgment of the trial Court
before the first appellate Court, and no such ground as regards non-joinder of
necessary parties has been taken in the memo of appeal in Title Appeal No.
120/2016, which was filed by the present petitioner on being aggrieved with the
judgment of the trial Court.
16. He further submits that even before this Court, while filing the revision
petition, that is, Civil Revision Petition No. 97/2019, no ground as regards non-
joinder of necessary parties was taken by the present petitioner. As such, he
submitted that only with a view to delay the execution of the decree, the
petitioner has filed this review application without there being any ground for
reviewing the judgment and order dated 04.05.2026 passed in CRP No.
97/2019.
17. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that a review
against a judgment of a Civil Court is maintainable only on specific grounds as
provided for in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He submits

Page No. 8/13
that the first ground, that is, discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the
petitioner or could be produced by it at the time when the decree was passed,
is not evenpleaded in this case. He submits that neither there is any apparent
error on the face of the judgment under review, or for any other sufficient
cause. As such, he submits that this review petition is not maintainable. He
submits that in the guise of exercising review jurisdiction, a Court cannot sit on
appeal over its own judgment and take a different view from the view taken by
the said Court earlier.
18. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent
has cited following ruling:
a) S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Ors ., reported
(2022) 17 SCC 255
in .
b) Smti. Renu Devi Kucheria (Oswal) and Ors. Vs. Smti. Taravini Devi
Tiwari and 7 Ors. , (judgment dated 25.08.2017 in Review Petition No.
132 of 2017).
19. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both
sides and have gone through the materials available on record, including the
judgment of which review is sought for in this review petition. I have also gone
through the judgments cited by learned counsel for the parties in support of
their respective submissions.
20. The point to be determined in this review petition is as to whether the
review petitioner has been able to make out a case for review of the judgment
and order dated 04.05.2026 passed in CRP No. 97/2019, whereby the said Civil

Page No. 9/13
Revision Petition was dismissed by this Court.
21. For the sake of convenience, the provisions contained in Section 114 as
well as Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are reproduced
herein below:
“ 114. Review. -
Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this
Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this
Code, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,
may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed
the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such
order thereon as it thinks fit.

ORDER XLVII
REVIEW
1. Application for review of judgment. —
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but
from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not
within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the
time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account
of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or
for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the
decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a
review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or
made the order.”
22. While making observation on the scope of review jurisdiction of a Civil
Court, the Supreme Court of India has observed in the case of S. Madhusudhan

Page No. 10/13
Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Ors
. (supra) as follows:
“ 33. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has
been consistently held by this Court in several judicial
pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the
same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if
there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record,
but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning,
cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the
record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order
47 Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the
Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken
earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views
in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any
new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing
of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was
not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could
not be produced by it when the order was made despite
undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear
distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error
apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can
be corrected by the superior court, however an error apparent
on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising
review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order
47 Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as “for
any other sufficient reason”. The said phrase has been explained
to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to
those specified in the rule” (refer : Chhajju Ram v. Neki [Chhajju
Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius
[Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius,
(1954) 2 SCC 42 : (1955) 1 SCR 520 : AIR 1954 SC 526] ).”
23. From above, it becomes clear that this Court can exercise review
jurisdiction only under three circumstances, namely, if a new and important
matter or evidence has been discovered which, after exercise of due diligence,
was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by the petitioner
seeking review at the time when the decree was passed or order was made;

Page No. 11/13
secondly, if there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of record; and
thirdly, for any other sufficient cause. The phrase "any other sufficient cause"
has to be interpreted ejusdem generis with the preceding phrases of Order
XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. That is to say that the said phrase means a reason
sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rules.
24. In the instant case, it appears that the plea that the appellate Court or
trial Court had not considered the exhibit which were marked as Exhibits-Z-20 to
Z-47 was not specifically taken in the revision petition filed by the present
petitioner before this Court assailing the judgment of the first appellate Court.
The contention that Exhibits-Z-20 to Z-47 was not taken into consideration was
neither taken by the petitioner in the Title Appeal No. 120/2016 nor in the Civil
Revision Petition No. 97/2019. Hence, said plea cannot be taken for the first
time by the petitioners in this review petition as same cannot be regarded as
the discovery of new and important matter which, after exercise of due
diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner.
25. Neither said matter qualifies within the meaning of any other sufficient
reasons to be reconsidered at the stage of—at the fourth stage of litigation,
after the trial Court has, while deciding Issue No. 2 regarding non-joinder of
necessary parties, has categorically held that the brother of the present
respondent is not a necessary party to the title suit (eviction suit) filed by the
present respondent. The Trial Court, while deciding the Issue No. 2 regarding
non-joinder of necessary parties, has made categorical observation that the
present petitioner (defendant in Title Suit No. 185 of 2013) has never contended
that the plaintiff is not his landlord. In the appeal preferred against the Trial
Court's judgment, the present petitioner has never raised any objection

Page No. 12/13
regarding the finding as regards the Issue No. 2 by the Trial Court. The main
thrust of petitioner in the appeal preferred by him against the Trial Court's
judgment was purported error committed by the Trial Court while deciding the
point of bona fide requirement of the suit premises.
26. The petitioner has also not raised any objection, in the Civil Revision
Petition No. 97/2019, against the decision of the Trial Court on the question of
non-joinder of necessary parties. The fact that the evidence about which the
petitioner is raising question in this review petition, that is Exhibits-Z-20 to Z-47,
was not discussed by the Trial Court while arriving at a decision with regard to
Issue No. 2, that is question of non-joinder of necessary parties, was well within
the knowledge of the petitioner. As such, same cannot be a reason for reviewing
the decision passed by this Court in CRP No. 97/2019.
27. Moreover, this Court is also of the considered opinion that the reasoning
given by the Trial Court while deciding Issue No. 2 and holding that the suit is
not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties are good and valid reasoning, and
the Trial Court would have arrived at the same conclusion even if the electricity
bill receipts which were marked as Exhibits -Z-20 to Z-47 would have been
considered by the Trial Court, as the petitioner has admitted the present
respondent as its landlord and have never raised any question denying the fact
that the present respondent is the landlord of the petitioner in respect of the
suit premises.
28. On perusal of the judgment dated 04.05.2026 delivered by this Court in
CRP No. 97/2019, it appears that the Civil Revision Petition preferred by the
present petitioner was mainly dismissed by this Court on the ground that the
petitioner has failed to show any jurisdictional error warranting interference by

Page No. 13/13
this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908.
29. In the instant review application also, the petitioner has failed to satisfy
this Court as to existence of any of the three grounds mentioned in Order XLVII
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is required to be there for
invoking review jurisdiction by this Court. As such, this Court is of considered
opinion that the petitioner has failed to show any sufficient ground for invoking
review jurisdiction in this case.
30. In view of the discussions made and the reasons stated in the foregoing
paragraphs, the instant review application is hereby dismissed with cost.
31. The stay of further proceeding of Title Execution Case No. 14/2026,
which was granted by this Court by order dated 20.08.2026, is hereby vacated.
The executing Court shall proceed with the aforesaid execution case to execute
the decree as per law immediately.


JUDGE
Abhishe
k Prem
Digitally signed
by Abhishek Prem
Date: 2026.11.03
13:14:47 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant