IMPORTANT POINT
The dismissal of a review petition confirms the main order, and anyone aggrieved must challenge the main order, not the order dismissing the review petition. The abuse of the process of the Court can lead to dismissal of proceedings with costs.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S.J. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. R. K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. This is a classic case wherein an unscrupulous litigant has taken this Court for a ride thereby grossly abusing the process of the Court as would appear from the narration of the facts stated herein under.

3. The Petitioners herein are the substituted plaintiffs in a suit filed in the year 2000 which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.229/2000. Subsequently, the said suit was re-numbered as Title Suit No.979/2006 upon being transferred to the Court of the Munsiff No.2, Kamrup at Guwahati in view of the change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.

4. On 30.11.2005, an order was passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Kamrup at Guwahati, wherein Title Suit No.229/2000 was pending thereby rejecting various applications filed by the plaintiff. This order dated 30.11.2005 was sought to be reviewed by the original plaintiff by filing a review application on 04.01.2006. While the said review application was pending, the original plaintiff filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 30.11.2005 which was registered and numbered as CRP No.33/2006. The said CRP No.33/2006 was dismissed for default vide an order dated 08.09.2010 for 2 (two) reasons. Firstly, the Petitioner had not appeared and secondly, the Petitioner did not take steps for service of notice upon the remaining Respondents. It is noteworthy to mention that the one of the counsels for the Petitioner of the said proceedings was Mr. S.J. Sharma, the learned Advocate who is also the counsel for the Petitioners in the instant proceedings.

5. The fact as regards the dismissal of the CRP No.33/2006 vide the order dated 08.09.2010 was not informed to the learned Trial Court. This aspect of the matter is apparent from the order dated 24.05.2013. It is interesting to take note of that the order dated 24.05.2013 categorically observes that the review petition was not brought to the attention of the learned Trial Court in the year 2007 when the suit was transferred and it was only on 03.04.2013 that the review petition was brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court. It is also apparent from the said order dated 24.05.2013 that one of the grounds for rejection of the review petition was that the civil revision petition was pending before this Court and as such the question of reviewing the order dated 30.11.2005 did not arise. It is not known as to why the Petitioners did not inform the learned Trial Court about the dismissal of the CRP No.33/2006 vide the order dated 08.09.2010. However, it was informed during the course of the hearing by Mr. S. J. Sharma, the learned counsel that it was not within the knowledge of the counsel that the CRP No.33/2006 was dismissed on 08.09.2010. Be that as it may, if the said issue was duly pending before the High Court, the review petition ought to have been not pressed but it seems otherwise inasmuch as the Petitioners herein pressed for a decision on the review petition. It was under such circumstances, the order dated 24.05.2013 was passed. This order dated 24.05.2013 was put to challenge by filing the present revision petition on 10.01.2014. It is also relevant to mention that in the present petition, the Petitioners again impugn the order dated 30.11.2005 in addition to the order dated 24.05.2013.

6. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the manner in which the instant proceedings have been conducted and how it came to the notice of this Court about the perpetuation of the abuse of the process of the Court by the Petitioners.

7. The record reveals that though the revision application was filed as far back as on 10.01.2014, it was lying defective till 01.03.2014 when the defects were cured. On 05.03.2014, when the matter was listed, this Court questioned on the m