SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 165

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
Thaneswar Bora, S/o. Late Durga Kalita And Anr. – Petitioners 
Versus
Bhoben Bora, S/o. Late Puniram Bora And Late Bogi Bora – Respondent
CRP No.74 of 2025
Decided On : 20-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.D. Das, Mr. H.R. Das, Mr. D. Kalita, Mr. H.K. Sarma.
For the Respondent: Mr. P.P. Das, Mr. B. Deka, Mr. Surajit Das.

The High Court under Article 227 does not reconsider factual errors of inferior courts unless findings are perverse or unjust, maintaining supervisory authority without delving into case merits.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 - High Court's supervisory powers are invoked where inferior courts act arbitrarily, exceed their jurisdiction, or fail to exercise it. The learned Civil Judge granted a temporary injunction against the defendants; however, the Addl. District Judge vacated this injunction order on appeal, ruling that the trial court's decision was erroneous but within its jurisdiction. (Paras 2, 6, 7 and 8)

(B) Jurisdiction of Courts - The High Court does not interfere in mere factual errors unless findings are perverse or unjust, and must refrain from reviewing the merits of the case. Findings based on material evidence with potential for injustice allow for High Court intervention. (Paras 6, 7 and 8)

Facts of the case:
The case involves a petition challenging the Addl. District Judge's order which vacated a temporary injunction preventing defendants from using suit land. The initial injunction was granted by the Civil Judge.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found no errors in the appellate court’s judgment and confirmed its authority under Article 227.

Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the appellate court had the jurisdiction to vacate the injunction order and if the findings of the trial court could be deemed perverse.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellate court acted within its jurisdiction and affirmed the necessity of substantive evidence for lower court findings to be deemed justifiable.

Result: Revision petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. nature of the case and initial injunction (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. high court's grounds for interference under article 227 (Para 6 , 7)
3. nature of the high court's power under article 227 (Para 8)
4. dismissal of the revision petition (Para 9)

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel representing the sole respondent.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jorhat in Misc.(A) Case No.18/2024 vacating the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jorhat in Misc.(J) Case N.107/2024.

3. In an injunction petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) at Jorhat granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the suit land as well as from using the suit land in any manner.

4. The learned Addl. District Judge, on appeal, disagreed with the trial judge and set aside the said injunction order.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

6. The main grounds on which the High Court interferes under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are –

i. When the inferior Courts act arbitrarily

ii. When the inferior Courts act in excess of the Jurisdiction vested in them.

iii. When the inferior Courts fail to exercise jurisdiction vested in them.

7. It is pertinent to note that the High Court does not interfere for correcting mere error of facts or, with a finding of the subordinate court which is within the jurisdiction of such court. However, if, such finding is perverse in such a sense that no prudent person having the knowledge of law could have arrived at such finding, or the finding is not based on any material evidence or, such finding results in manifestation of injustice or if there is a misdirection in law then the High Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. The learned appellate court exercised its power under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. While exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, High Court does not sit on appeal to go into the merit of the case. The power under Article 227 is supervisory in nature. The learned appellate court acted within its jurisdiction. There is nothing wrong with the judgment passed by the learned appellate court.

9. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the revision petition is found to be devoid of merit, stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top