The court held that a significant delay in filing a review petition cannot be condoned without sufficient explanation, especially when a prior Supreme Court ruling exists.

ORDER :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

Heard Mr. A.R. Medhi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel Mr. B.Sinha and learned counsel Mr. S. Saikia for the respondent No. 2.

2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with prayer for condonation of delay of 2489 (Two Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Nine) days. The applicant in this case is Madhav Ch. Das. It is submitted that a review petition for reviewing the judgment and order dated 03.03.2015 passed by this Court in RSA No. 42/2012, was filed on 25.11.2022. The applicant filed a review petition on 25.11.2022 but it was withdrawn vide order dated 08.01.2024 owning to some technicalities and a fresh petition on 11.01.2024 was filed.

3. A title suit was brought up by the applicant for declaration of right, title and interest as well as khas possession with eviction and permanent injunction against the respondents which was registered as Title Suit No. 170/2006. The suit was deiced in favour of this applicant vide the judgment and decree dated

31.08.2010.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2010, the appellant/defendant/respondent preferred Tile Appeal No. 22/2010 before the Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), which was dismissed by the Court vide judgment and order dated 25.08.2011. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2011, the appellant/defendant/respondent filed a second appeal being RSA No. 42/2012 before this Court and the judgment and decree of the first instant as well as the appellate Court was set aside with a direction to frame an additional issue as to whether the appellant/defendant/respondent is entitled to seek protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court of first instance was also directed to decide the same in accordance with law.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.03.2015 in RSA No. 42/2012, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court registered as SLP (C) No. 13970/2015. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after hearing, dismissed the SLP observing that “no grounds for interference is made out to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.” The SLP was dismissed accordingly vide order dated 04.07.2016. The case was then remanded back to the first Appellate Court.

6. Accordingly, the first Appellate Court took up the appeal for hearing, but the appellant/defendant did not pursue his case. Therefore, on 20.09.2016, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal on default of the appellant/defendant.

7. Thereafter, the present applicant filed a Title Execution case before the Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M) for execution of the original judgment and decree, which was registered as Title Execution Case No. 34/2018 and notices were issued to the appellant/respondent/defendant and accordingly, both the parties appeared before the Court. Vide the order dated 29.04.2022, the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M) dismissed Title Execution Case No. 34/2018 stating that the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court was set aside to decide the case afresh by way of framing an additional issue. It is submitted that as the first Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal for default of the appellant/defendant, no executable decree exists.

8. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid impugned order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M) in Title Execution No. 34/2018 arising out of Title Suit No. 170/2006, the applicant filed a civil revision petition before this Court, which was registered as CRP No. 69/2022. It is further submitted that at the time of admission of the revision petition, the applicant prayed before this Court to allow the applicant to file a review petition seeking review of the judgment and order dated 03.03.2015 passed in RSA No. 42/2012 and allow the prayer of the applicant.

9. The applicant then preferred the review petition seeking review of the judgment and order dated 0