BIMAN MAHANTA Vs. CHENEHI SAIKIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R. P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M. R. Adhikari, learned counsel, for the review petitioner. Also heard Dr. Y. K. Phukan, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mrs. S. Bora, learned counsel, for the Respondents.

(2.) THIS application has been filed for review / modification of judgment and order dated 29-01-2008 passed in RSA No. 65/2000 whereby this Court, without going into the merit of the case, disposed of the said appeal on the basis of submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / present petitioner to the effect that the appellant would have no grievance against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19-1-2000 signed on 25-1-2000 by the lower Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 02/1999 except the order for (i) recovery of Rs. 6,750/- as loss incurred by the plaintiff for not being able to possess the land during the year of alleged dispossession and, (ii) compensation (usufruct) at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per year from 12-11-1996 till recovery of the suit land subject to payment of requisite court - fees.

(3.) MR . Sarmah, learned senior counsel, submits that the aforesaid concession was made by the counsel engaged by the appellant / petitioner at the time of hearing without obtaining any instruction from the appellant and it would cause great prejudice and hardship to the petitioner as he is still in possession / occupation of the suit land and as a cultivator, he is solely dependent on the said suit land for maintenance of himself and his family. Moreover, the value of the said suit land is much more than Rs. 6,750/- as directed to be exempted and also the compensation (usufruct) at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per year from 12-11-1996 till recovery of the suit land. According to him, the concession alleged to have been made by the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing of the second appeal is beyond anybody s comprehension in view of the present market value of the suit land which is still in his physical possession. Even assuming, but not admitting, that the alleged concession was made by the learned counsel as per instruction of the appellant / present petitioner at the time of hearing, it is simply unbelievable and for the ends of justice, the aforesaid order needs to be recalled / modified and / or reviewed and the matter may be heard again on merit.