Musstt. Monowara Khatun @ Manowara Begum vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors
- Court
- Gauhati High Court
GAHC010048832026
2026:GAU-AS:7456
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
Review.Pet./54/2026
with
WP(C)/6775/2025(D/O)
1. Musstt. Monowara Khatun @ Monowara Begum ,
D/o Rustom Ali, W/o-Zakir Hussain,
R/o- Village-3 No. Rajapukhuri,
P.S.-Sarupathar, District-Golaghat, Assam.
……Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The Union of India , represented by the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Election Commission of India , New Delhi-110001.
3. The State of Assam , represented by the Government of Assam, Home
Department, Dispur, Guwahati-06.
4. The Assam State Co-ordinator of NRC , Bhangagarh, Guwahati-06.
5. The District Commissioner , Golaghat, District-Golaghat, Assam.
6. The Superintendent of Police (B) , Golaghat, District-Golaghat,
Assam.
……Respondents.
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. G. Borah, Adv.
……Advocates.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.K. Medhi, CGC,
Ms. S. Katakey, SC, ECI.
Mr. J. Payeng, GA.
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 1 of 18
Ms. R.B. Bora, GA.
……Advocates.
Date(s) of Hearing :- 27.03.2026
Date on which judgment is reserved :- 27.03.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment :- 29.05.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the judgment?
:- N/A
Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced?
:- Yes
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(A.M. Kalita, J)
Heard Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned CGC for the respondent No.1; Ms. M.
Singha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. S. Katakey,
learned Standing Counsel, ECI, representing respondent No.2; Mr. J.
Payeng, learned standing Counsel, FT and NRC, for the respondents
No.3, 4 and 6; as well as Ms. R. B. Bora, learned Government
Advocate for the respondent No. 5.
2. The instant review petition has been filed under Section 114 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Order XLVII of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the order dated
09.02.2026 passed in WP(C) No. 6775/2025, whereby the writ
petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner had
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 2 of 18
earlier filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, challenging the opinion dated 13.03.2021 passed by the
learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat, in Case No. FTG/411/2011,
arising out of SP Enquiry No. 280/2007, thereby declaring the
petitioner to be a foreigner who entered India post 25.03.1971.The
aforesaid writ petition was registered as WP(C) No. 6775/2025, and
this Court, by its order dated 09.02.2026, dismissed the writ
petition, inter alia , on the ground of enormous unexplained delay
and laches of 4 years 7 months and 7 days in assailing the impugned
opinion dated 13.03.2021 passed by the learned Member of the
Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat.
3. The case of the petitioner, as narrated in the instant petition, is
that vide an order dated 21.01.2020, upon receipt of the case of the
petitioner and after registering the same, the learned Member of the
Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat issued notice to the petitioner, fixing a
date on 10.02.2020 for submission of service report and appearance.
Subsequently, on 10.02.2020, the petitioner, through her engaged
counsel, namely Shri Mriganka Saikia from the Golaghat Bar
Association filed a petition, being Petition No. 220/2020, seeking
another date and accordingly, next date was fixed on 17.02.2020.
However, on 17.02.2020, the petitioner remained absent without
taking any steps and the matter was again re-fixed on 24.02.2020.
On 24.02.2020 also, the petitioner remained absent, but filed a
petition being Petition No. 416/2020. Accordingly, another
opportunity was granted to the petitioner and the next date was
fixed on 23.02.2020. On the said date also, due to the absence of the
petitioner, the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal fixed 12.03.2020 for
appearance, filing of written statement, etc. However, on that date
also, another opportunity had to be given to the petitioner for her
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 3 of 18
appearance and for filing of written statement etc. But due to her
absence, the matter was again fixed on 20.03.2020, 04.04.2020,
20.06.2020 and 19.09.2021 respectively. Since the Courts were
suspended on those dates due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the matter
was, thereafter, fixed on 30.12.2020, 08.01.2021, 18.01.2021,
22.01.2021, 05.02.2021, 11.02.2021, 19.02.2021, 26.02.2021,
11.03.2021, 18.03.2021 and 30.03.2021. Due to the consistent
absence of the petitioner, the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal,
Jorhat, by order dated 30.03.2021, passed the impugned opinion in
Case No. FTG/411/2011, arising out of SP Enquiry No. 280/2007,
thereby declaring the petitioner as a foreigner who had illegally
entered into the territory of India after 25.03.1971.
4. It is contended by the petitioner that on an earlier occasion,
the petitioner had filed a writ petition assailing the ex parte opinion
dated 30.03.2021, which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.
4720/2025. However, due to certain defects in the petition, the same
was withdrawn and the aforesaid WP(C) No. 4720/2025 was closed
on withdrawal with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach this
Court again, if so advised. The petitioner contends that after
withdrawing the earlier writ petition, the petitioner again preferred
a writ petition before this Court, which was registered and
numbered as WP(C) No. 6775/2025. However, this Court, by order
dated 09.02.2026, dismissed the petition on the ground of enormous
delay and laches in assailing the impugned opinion dated
30.03.2021. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that she
has ample documents to prove her citizenship, but due to her
absence, she could not produce the same before the learned
Foreigners’ Tribunal. It is also contended that in the voter list of
1970, the name of her father appeared as Rustam Ali, son of Selamat,
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 4 of 18
of House No. 43, Part No. 73, at Village Lathima, Mouza-Alitangani,
P.S.-Rupahihat, District-Nagaon, under 86 No. Dhing LAC. It is
further contended that the petitioner’s name along with other family
members appeared in the voter lists of 2005, 2010, 2013, 2018,
2019, 2020, 2024 as well as 2025 respectively. It is also contended
that the petitioner has been duly issued an Electoral Photo Identity
Card by the Election Commission of India. It is further contended
that the Income Tax Department, Government of India, has issued a
Permanent Account Number (PAN) card in favour of the petitioner
and the Aadhaar Card No. bearing No.85214213 5289 was also
issued in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority of the
Government of India. It is contended that a ration card has also been
issued to the petitioner in her name. It is contended that on receipt
of the enquiry report, the Superintendent of Police, Golaghat
forwarded the case record of SP Enquiry No. 280/2007 to the
Foreigners’ Tribunal at Jorhat. However, without conducting a
proper enquiry, the Enquiry Officer recorded certain vague
statements which are not at all true.
5. The petitioner contends that in view of the fact that no proper
enquiry was conducted while referring the case to the learned
Member of the Foreigners’ Tribunal, the petitioner has suffered
immensely and ultimately she has been declared as a foreigner post-
1971 stream. The petitioner further contends that the learned
Foreigners’ Tribunal had mechanically delivered the impugned ex
parte opinion without proper application of judicial mind as because
from the month of March, 2020, the entire Country was under
lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic and, as such, this Court
may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari by setting aside and
quashing the ex parte opinion dated 30.03.2021 passed in Case No.
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 5 of 18
FTG/411/2011, and further may be pleased to remand the matter to
the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat to decide the matter afresh
after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence by
exhibiting vital documents.
6. Ms. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the
husband of the petitioner made certain enquiries in the instant case
as to why the engaged counsel for the petitioner could not convey
the status of the case of the petitioner. He found that two individuals,
namely Naju and Sabiqul Islam from the District of Golaghat, were
the persons through whom the engaged counsel used to convey
information regarding the case to the petitioner. However,
unfortunately, proper information regarding the case was never
conveyed to the petitioner or her husband by those individuals. She
submits that since Naju and Sabiqul Islam were the persons who
introduced the petitioner to the engaged counsel, namely Shri
Mriganka Saikia, the petitioner did not have any direct contact with
the counsel and till the disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner
mistakenly believed that the engaged counsel could not inform her
about the subsequent dates so fixed by the learned Foreigners’
Tribunal due to the COVID-19 pandemic. She submits that
accordingly, the husband of the petitioner, vide, Registered Post,
forwarded an application addressed to the Secretary, Bar
Association, Golaghat, seeking information from the learned counsel,
namely, Shri Mriganka Saikia, as to why the status of the case was
not intimated to the petitioner. However, the petitioner is yet to
receive any reply to her application.
7. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner was
absent for a subsequent time after the COVID-19 pandemic, the
petitioner, in fact, could not appear before the learned Foreigners’
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 6 of 18
Tribunal due to the fact that she was not properly conveyed about
the status of the case and she was not apprised about the
consequences of her non-appearance by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Ms. Borah submits that due to the default or non-
conveyance of the status of the case by her counsel, the petitioner
should not be made to suffer in the instant case. She submits that in
the writ petition which was dismissed by this Court, the ground of
default of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was not
specifically taken and therefore, this Court could not take into
account the said fact while dismissing the writ petition of the
petitioner, vide the judgment and order dated 09.02.2026. She
further submits that while passing the Judgment & Order dated
09.02.2026, this Court did not consider the fact of insufficient
Enquiry Report of the Superintendent of Police. She submits that the
aforesaid report was made without conducting a proper enquiry and
the report was prepared mechanically without putting to her the
questions contained in Form-III of the Enquiry Report. Therefore,
she submits that the concerned Superintendent of Police came to the
conclusion without conducting a proper enquiry about the
nationality of the petitioner and thereby, referred the matter to the
learned Foreigners’ Tribunal in a most mechanical manner.
8. Ms. Borah, learned counsel also submits that in the instant
case, no questionnaire was framed by the Enquiry Officer as to
whether either of her parents or any of her grandparents were born
in undivided India or not. She submits that the instant review
petition has been filed to pray for an opportunity to be given to the
petitioner for proving her nationality, as she has ample documents
to prove her nationality. She submits that by passing the ex parte
opinion, and if the same is allowed to be sustained, the petitioner
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 7 of 18
will suffer irreparable loss as her nationality is at stake. She submits
that due to certain misunderstanding and default of the counsel
appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner could not be present in
the proceeding before the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal and
therefore, the petitioner should not be made to suffer due to the
default of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the
learned Foreigners’ Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid, she submits
that the instant review petition should be allowed and the matter
may be remanded to the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat to
adjudicate afresh by allowing her to adduce necessary evidence
regarding her nationality.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the
instant case, the petitioner has been picked up randomly and
without having any material regarding her nationality and without
conducting a proper enquiry, the Enquiry Report was prepared by
the Enquiry Officer and the same was referred by the concerned
Superintendent of Police to the Foreigners’ Tribunal for an opinion.
She submits that in the absence of any basic and primary material, it
cannot be left to the arbitrary discretion of the authorities to initiate
proceedings which have life-altering and grave consequences for a
person and therefore, the petitioner should not be made to suffer
due to the default of the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal.
10. In support of her submission, the learned counsel has referred
to the case of Md. Rahim Ali Vs. State of Assam & Ors , reported in
2024 INSC 511 .
11. On the other hand, Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the FT and NRC, submits that no case has been made
out by the petitioner in the instant case for review of the judgment
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 8 of 18
and order dated 09.02.2026 passed by this Court. He submits that
the instant petition is not an appeal and therefore, in a review
petition, the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be
considered as if the matter is being heard afresh. He further submits
that the scope of review jurisdiction is very limited and the same has
been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions.
He submits that, in the instant case, although the plea of negligence
or default on the part of the counsel appearing for the petitioner has
been taken, the same was not urged earlier in WP(C) No.
6775/2025. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner
has, in fact, in the guise of a review petition, filed an appeal, which
cannot be entertained. He submits that the grounds taken in the
instant review petition are not tenable in law. He further submits
that the certiorari jurisdiction of the High Court is limited and while
filing the earlier writ petition, all such grounds were available to the
petitioner. However, the same were not raised earlier. In the instant
petition, the petitioner has sought to raise new grounds which were
already existed at the time when the writ petition was filed.
Therefore, the instant petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be
dismissed.
12. The learned Standing Counsel also submits that sufficient
opportunities had been granted by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal
to the petitioner to place her case before the Tribunal. However,
despite having received notice, the petitioner failed to appear before
the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal. Learned Standing Counsel further
submits that the learned counsel for the petitioner had appeared on
a couple of occasions before the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal and
thereafter, without filing the written statement, remained absent
throughout the proceedings. He submits that the Foreigners’
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 9 of 18
Tribunal Order, 1964 mandates a time period within which a
reference has to be answered/determined by the learned
Foreigners’ Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal is
bound to follow the statutory mandate and decide the reference
within the prescribed time. He submits that although the ex parte
opinion was rendered in the year 2021, the petitioner has
approached this Court after a delay of more than 4 years and 7
months by assailing the opinion dated 13.03.2021 passed by the
learned Foreigners’ Tribunal. He submits that while passing the ex
parte opinion, the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal has recorded in
details, the opportunities granted to the petitioner as well as the
mandate of the Foreigners’ Tribunal Order, 1964. Therefore, the
opinion of the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal cannot be faulted with.
He submits that all these aspects were duly considered by this Court
while disposing of the writ petition, vide order dated 09.02.2026.
13. Mr. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel submits that this Court,
after considering all the aforesaid aspects of the matter and having
found an enormous delay in filing the writ petition, dismissed the
same. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner, by way of the
present review petition, cannot seek to challenge the said order by
taking a false/bogus plea of default on the part of the counsel
appearing for the petitioner. He further submits that the ground
taken by the petitioner regarding non-intimation by the aforesaid
two persons about the status of the petitioner’s case is wholly
untenable and such grounds cannot be entertained for reviewing a
judgment and order passed after due consideration of all material
facts. In view of the above, he submits that the instant review
petition deserves to be rejected at the threshold.
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 10 of 18
14. The learned counsel appearing for the other respondents have
also supported the submissions made by the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the FT and NRC.
15. As far as consideration of WP(C) No. 6775/2025 is concerned,
while disposing of the matter, after due consideration, this Court
observed as follows in paragraphs 17 to 21:
“ 17. Coming to the present case in hand, even if the contention of
the petitioner is accepted that most of the non-appearance was
during the COVID-19 pandemic period, but the COVID-19 pandemic
period had come to an end on 01.03.2022 for all judicial purposes. It
is not the case of the petitioner that she was given any false or
misleading information by the learned Tribunal and/or her learned
counsel engaged to represent the petitioner before the learned
Tribunal. Accordingly, there is no explanation in this writ petition as
to why beyond the COVID-19 pandemic period, that is from
01.03.2022 till 01.06.2025, the date when this writ petition was filed,
the petitioner could not assail the impugned opinion. Consequently,
as the petitioner had been served with a notice of the proceeding and
she had failed to appear and to take steps to contest the proceeding,
and allowed 4 years 7 months 7 days to go by without assailing the
impugned opinion. There is no explanation as to why the petitioner
had failed to collect the dates of the proceeding against her. There is
no statement in the writ petition that the petitioner approached her
learned counsel, but her counsel gave her misleading or false
information or committed any professional misconduct.
18. Therefore, as the subsequent non-appearance or non-taking
of appropriate steps before the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal
immediately after 01.03.2022, when on the judicial side, the COVID-
19 pandemic period was over for all purposes of limitation, the
petitioner is seen to have accepted the expert opinion for 4 years 7
months 7 days or (1682) days.
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 11 of 18
19. Under such circumstances, the default on the part of the
petitioner in taking steps in proceedings or to get the expert opinion
vacated, demonstrates the lack of due diligence on the part of the
petitioner to contest the proceeding where her status as a citizen of
India was questioned.
20. In the considered opinion of the Court, after the service of
notice on the petitioner, there was no further requirement of the
learned Tribunal to issue fresh notice for appearance. The petitioner
had failed to file her written statement as directed. From the
Tribunal's order sheet, it is seen that the petitioner had remained
unrepresented on 20 days fixed in the proceeding.
21. This Court is constrained to hold that the Courts and
Tribunals, including the Foreigners’ Tribunal, are under no duty to
keep on issuing notices to the proceeding after they commit default in
appearing in a proceeding. The Court cannot accept that there can be
an endless exercise to keep on issuing notices to a litigant after each
and every default committed by a litigant. It was a duty cast upon the
petitioner to appear and contest the proceeding by filing her written
statement. Moreover, under the provisions of Order 3 (14) of the
(Tribunals’) Order, 1964, the mandate of law to the learned Tribunal
is to dispose of a reference within 60 days.”
16. It is clear that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition
filed by the petitioner, has taken into account and has examined in
detail the opinion rendered by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal,
whereby the ex parte opinion was passed. It is also seen that despite
sufficient time and number of opportunities have been granted to
the petitioner on several occasions, the petitioner failed to appear
before the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal. Being compelled by such
circumstances, the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal proceeded to
render the ex parte opinion. It is also seen that the learned
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 12 of 18
Foreigners’ Tribunal, while rendering its opinion, referred to the
relevant provisions of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964,
including Clause 3(8) as well as Clause 3(13) and Clause 3(14). This
Court did not find any infirmity in the opinion rendered by the
learned Foreigners’ Tribunal. This Court also took into consideration
the issue of delay and laches in filing the aforesaid writ petition,
wherein it was found that although the COVID-19 pandemic ended in
2022, the petitioner had approached this Court only in the year
2025, precisely after a delay of 4 years 7 months and 7 days, i.e.,
1682 days, in assailing the impugned opinion. Such huge and
unexplained delay was not satisfactorily explained in the writ
petition in a manner so as to persuade this Court to exercise its writ
jurisdiction. The petitioner also failed to explain as to why, even
after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, she could not contact her
counsel or approach the concerned Foreigners’ Tribunal to ascertain
the status of her case. Such inaction on the part of the petitioner
remained totally unexplained and whatever explanation sought to
be offered is found to be unacceptable by this Court being far from
convincing.
17. Taking into account the aforesaid two factors, especially
without entering into the other documents that have been submitted
along with the writ petition, this Court has taken a decision and
thereby, dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner, vide its order
dated 09.02.2026. It is a settled law that in a writ petition under
certiorari, this Court exercises limited jurisdiction. This Court cannot
go beyond the permissible limits while exercising its certiorari
jurisdiction. It is well settled that the first cardinal principle
governing the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution, more particularly, in matters relating to
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 13 of 18
issuance of a writ of certiorari, is that the High Court does not
exercise the powers of an appellate court. It does not review or
reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior
court or tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order
which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous,
but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior
tribunal. It is a settled law that a writ of certiorari can be issued if an
error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A writ of certiorari,
being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking.
18. It is also settled that the second cardinal principle governing
the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution is that in a given case, even if some action or order
challenged in a writ petition is found to be illegal or invalid, the High
Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder, can
refuse to interfere, in order to do substantial justice between the
parties. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are
essentially discretionary, though founded on legal injury. However,
it is open to the Writ Court, while exercising such flexible power to
pass such orders as public interest and equity demand. Therefore, in
view of the settled principles of law, it is clear that while considering
the case of the petitioner in the writ petition, this Court has taken
into account the aforesaid cardinal principles in proper perspective
and thereafter, dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner.
19. The essential features of a writ of certiorari, including its brief
history, have been exhaustively explained by B.K. Mukherjea, J. in
T.C. Basappa Vs. T. Nagappa, reported in (1954) 1 SCC 905 , being
relevant, paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 are quoted hereinbelow:
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 14 of 18
“ 8 …...In granting a writ of “certiorari”, the superior Court does not
exercise the powers of an Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or
reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior
tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it
considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous, but does
not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. ......
9. The supervision of the superior court exercised through writs of
“certiorari” goes on two points, as has been expressed by Lord
Summer in R. Vs. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd ., AC at p. 156 . One is the area
of the inferior jurisdiction and the qualifications and conditions of its
exercise; the other is the observance of law in the course of its
exercise. .....
10. “Certiorari” may and is generally granted when a court has acted
without or in excess of its jurisdiction.”
20. In view of the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it is apparently clear that while exercising the
jurisdiction of a writ of certiorari, the High Court need not go into
details to find fault with the opinion, judgment or order passed by an
inferior court or tribunal. Such jurisdiction can be exercised only
when there is something palpably wrong in the
order/opinion/judgment of the inferior Court/Tribunal, or when it
has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction. In the
instant case, while considering the writ petition, this Court did not
find any such error in the opinion rendered by the learned
Foreigners’ Tribunal. Therefore, taking into account the aforesaid
fact as well as the enormous unexplained delay in filing the writ
petition, this Court has dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner.
Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground for review of the
aforesaid judgment and order dated 09.02.2026 passed in the
aforesaid writ petition.
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 15 of 18
21. However, this Court finds it relevant to take into consideration
the principles governing review in the instant case. As regards the
principles of review, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision,
Malishwari v. K. Dutt Saguna & Anr . , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1927 , has observed as follows:
“ 15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless
expressly conferred by the statute or the rules having the force of
statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is
conferred by law on the authority or the court. Section 114 and Order
XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC deal with the power of review of the courts.
The power of review is different from appellate power and is subject
to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial
decisions:
15.1. The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have
to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of
the CPC.
15.2. The power of review is not to be confused with appellate
powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of
errors committed by the subordinate court.
15.3. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the
CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and
corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited
purpose and cannot be allowed to become an appeal in disguise.
15.4. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a
mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such power can be exercised
only within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of
such power.
15.5. The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A
rehearing of the matter is impermissible. Review constitutes an
exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 16 of 18
pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is invoked only to
prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable
errors.
16. To wit, through a review application, an apparent error of fact or
law is intimated to the court, but no extra reasoning is undertaken to
explain the said error. The intimation of error at the first blush
enables the court to correct apparent errors instead of the higher
court correcting such errors. At both the above stages, the detailed
reasoning is not warranted.
17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and
appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review
jurisdiction. The review grounds are summed up as follows:
17.1. The ground of discovery of new and important matter or
evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the
exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within their
knowledge of the party or could not be produced by the party at the
time, the original decree or order was passed.
17.2. Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be
invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be
one which is manifest on the face of the record. Such an error is a
patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be
established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where
there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an
error apparent on the face of the record.
17.3. Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason’ means a
reason which is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those
specified in the other two categories.”
22. From the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
it is clear that in the instant case, although the petitioner has taken
the ground that she was not intimated by the two persons engaged
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 17 of 18
to remain in contact with the petitioner’s counsel regarding the
status of the case, the same cannot be termed as a new fact going to
the root of the matter. This is because the petitioner, despite having
received notice and having engaged a counsel, did not appear during
the COVID-19 pandemic, which may be an acceptable excuse,
however, even after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, for about 3
(three) and a half years, the petitioner failed to contact either the
said two persons or her engaged counsel to ascertain the status of
her case. Such conduct reflects negligence on her part, which is not
acceptable to this Court. Therefore, in the instant review petition,
coming up with an excuse of such nature cannot be entertained.
23. This Court has not found any apparent error in the opinion
rendered by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat dated
13.03.2021 and is also not convinced with the explanation offered
for filing the writ petition after a delay of 4 years 7 months and 7
days, which has not been satisfactorily explained. Therefore, this
Court, having found no ground for review, does not find any reason
to review its Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2026. Accordingly, the
instant review petition stands dismissed.
24. No order as to cost(s).
JUDGE JUDGE
Yabii/Miriam
Review.Pet./ 54/2026 Page 18 of 18