Non-consideration of significant grounds in a civil revision petition can constitute an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting a review of the earlier order.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. N. Ratan, the petitioner No.1-in-person. Also heard Mr. T. Lamgu, learned counsel representing the respondents/opposite parties.

2. The present application is filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for a review of the judgment and order dated 25.10.2024 passed in CRP No. 17(AP)/2023.

3. The background facts of the present review petition are to the following effects:-

(i) The petitioners preferred an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 12.04.2023 passed by Monggu Banggo Kebang. The fundamental ground of such challenge was that aforesaid Monggu Banggo Kebang did not have any jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 12.04.2023 for the reason that the subject matter of the dispute was already sub-judice in Title Suit No. 08/2023.

(ii) The aforesaid suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest with consequential relief of permanent injunction over the suit land. The case of the petitioners is that one Olom Doso was the owner of the suit land and sold his land to petitioner No. 1 and father of the petitioner No. 2.

(iii) It is the further case projected in the revision petition that by order 12.04.2023 passed by the Gaon Burah (village headman) of Seram village, it was held that Banguk village came into existence on being permitted to be settled by the forefathers of Silluk village and the land owners of Banguk village were directed to construct a traditional community hall (Musup) over the disputed plot of land and also to perform traditional rituals on the land. Said Olom Doso, the vendor of the petitioners was imposed with a fine of Rs.2,500/- (Two thousand five hundred) for not attending the Kebang. According to petitioner No.1, this is the land which has been sold by Olom Doso, petitioner No. 4 to him and father of the petitioner No. 2.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court under its order 25.10.2024, opined that as the subject matter of Title Suit 8/2023 filed by the petitioners seeking declaration of right, title and interest over the plot of land measuring approximately 1248 acres located in Banguk area and the lands covered under order dated 12.04.2023 are similar and the Kebang also decided that said land is a community land and directed for construction of a traditional community hall over the said land, the civil suit is required to be proceeded being initiated at the earlier point of time inasmuch as if both are allowed to be proceeded, there may be overlapping of jurisdiction and may be conflicting decision. Infact that was the limited argument advanced by Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioners and conceded by Mr T. Lamgu, learned counsel for the respondents. In the aforesaid backdrop of consensus, the said Civil Revision Petition was disposed of providing that the impugned order dated 12.04.2023 shall not be implemented till the final decision that may be passed in the Civil Suit and the impugned order shall be subject to the decision of the Civil Court and while parting with the record, this Court further opined that it had not commented on the merit of the claim of the petitioners or the defendants in Title Suit No. 8/2023 or the decision of the Kebang dated 12.04.2023.

5. The petitioners are now seeking for a review of the aforesaid order dated 25.10.2024 in the present case.

6. The primary ground for seeking review is that one of the grounds taken in the Civil Revision Petition while assailing the impugned order dated 12.04.2023 was that the said order was an ex-parte order and totally illegal in terms of Section 44 (1) of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 inasmuch as such law mandates that Kebang decision should be held in presence of the parties. It is the contention of the petitioner No.1 in person that such ground was not considered by this Court.

7. It is further contended by the petitioner No.1 in person that