Failure to adjudicate one of multiple impugned orders constitutes an error apparent justifying review.

The underlying dispute stems from Title Suit No. 76/1979, which resulted in a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession, eventually upheld by the High Court in RSA No. 230/2005

During execution proceedings (Title Execution Case No. 5/2005), the petitioner filed two applications under Order 13 Rule 10(2) of the CPC: Misc. (J) Case No. 269/2025 (to call for records of previous title suits) and Misc. (J) Case No. 270/2025 (to call for records of a partition case from the Deputy Commissioner’s office)

Both applications were dismissed by the Executing Court on 29.08.2025

The petitioner challenged both orders via a single revision petition, CRP (IO) No. 375/2025

However, the High Court, by its order dated 10.11.2025, dismissed the revision after discussing only the order pertaining to Misc. (J) Case No. 269/2025

The petitioner subsequently filed the instant review application

1. Whether the judgment dated 10.11.2025 contained an "error apparent on the face of the record" due to the non-consideration of the impugned order in Misc. (J) Case No. 270/2025.

2. Whether the procedural irregularities in the petitioner’s revision application (using singular terminology for multiple orders) precluded the Court from reviewing the omitted issue.

The court applied Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which governs the power of a court to review its own judgment upon the discovery of an error apparent on the face of the record

It also referenced Order 13 Rule 10(2) of the CPC regarding the court's power to send for records from its own files or from other courts

Additionally, the court considered Rule 2 of Chapter IV (Part-II) of the Gauhati High Court Rules and Rule 20(2) of the Civil Court Rules and Orders of Gauhati High Court, which mandate that applications regarding distinct subject matters should be made in separate petitions

The court found that although the petitioner had challenged two distinct orders in the original revision petition, the judgment under review entirely omitted any discussion or adjudication regarding Misc. (J) Case No. 270/2025

The respondents' counsel conceded that while the application in Misc. (J) Case No. 270/2025 might have been legally flawed (as records were sought from an administrative office rather than a "Court"), the High Court had indeed failed to address it in the prior judgment

The court noted that while the petitioner contributed to the confusion by using singular terminology ("order") and failing to file separate petitions for distinct subject matters as required by the High Court Rules, these procedural lapses did not negate the fact that a substantive challenge remained unaddressed

This omission was deemed a clear error apparent on the face of the record

It held that the failure to consider one of the two impugned orders necessitated a rehearing of the revision petition

The Registry was directed to restore CRP (IO) No. 375/2025 and list it for fresh hearing in May 2026 to reconsider both impugned orders dated 29.08.2025