CRP 134/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. SARMA Heard Mr. H.K. Deka, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the peti tioner. Also heard Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/responde nt. In this petition two orders have been put under challenge i.e. the order dated 28-8-2009 passed in Misc.(J) Case No. 134/2009 thereby not admitting t he Ext- D sought to be proved by DW 1 in favour of the petitioner. The other ord er dated 8-2-2010 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 233/09 by which the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati, rejected the prayer of the petitioner to review the order dated 28-8-09 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 134/09. The document in que stion which is the certificate issued by the Senior Assistance Settlement Office r, Guwahati Resettlement Office, which was marked as Ext- D, was not admitted as a documentary evidence and the same was expunged from the evidence of DW 1. The petitioner prayed for review of the said order by filing a review petition whic h was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 233/09. The said petition was rejected by the learned Civil Judge No. 2. The operative part of the order is quoted herein below- Now, the question arises whether an order passed under Order 8 Rule 1(A) and un der Order 11 Rule 14 of the CPC an appealable orders because Section 114 of the CPC is the substantive law which says that a review petition can be entertained against an order which is appealable but no appeal has been preferred. Answer to this question must be given in negative. No appeal lies against an order passed under the said provisions of law. For this reason, no review against such order s. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of adjournment made by the learned counsel for the defendant. The prayer for review is rejecte d. S. 114 of the CPC provides that any person considering himself aggrieved - a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but f rom which no appeal has been preferred, b) by the decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Court, or c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of small causes, may apply for review of the judgment to the Court which passed the decree or ma de the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit. The three conditions prescribed u/s 114 CPC are alternative to each other. Admit tedly the order sought to be reviewed is not an appealable order and accordingly it would attract the provisions of Section 114(b) of the CPC. The finding of th e learned trial court that no review lies against such an order, in view of the aforesaid unambiguous and settled position of law is not sustainable in law as w ell as in facts. Mr. Das learned counsel appearing for the respondent in his usual fairness has n ot controverted the aforesaid legal position. Accordingly the order dated 8-2-2009 stands set aside and quashed. The learned trial court is directed to dispose of the review petition filed by t he petitioner on merit as early as possible. With this order, this petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.