BIMAN MAHANTA Vs. LEGAL HEIRS OF HALADHAR 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 19.01.2000 signed on 25.01.2000 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.) COUNTERING the submissions of Mr. Sarmah, Dr. Phukan, learned senior counsel submits that the appellant/ petitioner was represented by a senior counsel who made the above concession on instruction received from the appellant and it cannot be doubted that a senior counsel would make such wrong submission before the Court without any instruction. If the aforesaid concession was made by the engaged senior counsel, without instruction, he should be made a party respondent in the present review petition for the purpose of clarifications/explanations from the aforesaid senior counsel but the same has not been done so. In absence of the aforesaid senior counsel, no order against him could be passed nor could any opinion or conclusion be made. Moreover, according to Dr. Phukan, there is no legally acceptable ground for review of the aforesaid order on the basis of an afterthought allegation brought against the senior counsel engaged by the appellant/present petitioner in the said appeal.