Error Apparent On Face Of Record If Court Fails To Consider One Of Multiple Orders Challenged: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has held that where two orders are put to challenge, non-consideration of one of the impugned orders would amount to an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting exercise of review jurisdiction.Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, pressing over the case, observed, “Be that as it may, it is apparent on perusal of the judgment and order under review that no...
The Gauhati High Court has held that where two orders are put to challenge, non-consideration of one of the impugned orders would amount to an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting exercise of review jurisdiction.
Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, pressing over the case, observed, “Be that as it may, it is apparent on perusal of the judgment and order under review that no discussion about the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Executing Court in Misc. (J) Case No.270/2025 has been made in the judgment and order under review. Hence, there is an error apparent on the face of the order itself and accordingly, the same is required to be vacated.”
“This Court, accordingly, vacates the judgment and order dated 10.11.2025 passed in Civil Revision Petition (IO) No. 375/2025 by this Court,” the Court added.
The above ruling was made in a Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of an order passed in a Civil Revision Petition.
As per the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner had earlier approached the Court by filing an application under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, whereby the orders passed in two separate Misc. (J) cases were put to challenge, and the same was registered as a Civil Revision Petition.
In the execution proceeding, the petitioner filed applications for calling of records, which were registered as separate Misc. (J) cases. Through two different orders, both the applications were dismissed by the Executing Court.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the civil revision petition challenging the said orders, which was dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 10.11.2025.
The present review petition was filed on the ground that though two separate orders were put to challenge, the order under review considered only one of the impugned orders and no discussion was made in respect of the other.
In the review petition, the petitioner contended that despite challenging two separate orders, the earlier judgment had addressed only one, thereby giving rise to an apparent error. The respondents also submitted that no discussion had been made in the earlier order.
On consideration, the Court further noted that the cause title of the earlier revision petition had created confusion as the word “order” was used in singular form while referring to both impugned orders, which contributed to the omission.
“In the instant case, it appears that in the cause title of the petition filed by the present petitioner in Civil Revision Petition (IO) No. 375/2025, though, the mention of order dated 29.08.2025 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 269/2025 in connection with Title Execution Case No.5/2005 has been separately mentioned after the cause title. However, while mentioning the order passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 269/2025 and Misc. (J) Case No.270/2025 in the third paragraph after the cause title, the word “order” has been used in singular form, giving rise to a confusion regarding the numbers of orders which were challenged in the Civil Revision Petition (IO) No. 375/2025,” the court said.
It said that a clear and separate mention of the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.270/2025 after the cause title of the Civil Revision Petition (IO) No. 375/2025 would have facilitated in avoiding the confusion, which had occurred.
In view of the omission, the Court vacated the earlier order, and directed the Registry, “to restore the Civil Revision Petition (IO) No. 375/2025 and list the same for hearing again in the second week of May 2026 on a date to be fixed by it.”
Case Title: Subhodeep Roy v. Madhu Sudan Koiri & Ors.
Case Number: Review Petition No. 274/2025