Review Petition Lacks Merit Where Delay and Negligence Remain Unexplained Despite Claims of Counsel Misconduct

The petitioner was declared a foreigner who entered India post-March 25, 1971, by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat, via an ex parte opinion dated March 13, 2021

The petitioner failed to appear before the Tribunal on 20 separate dates despite receiving notice

A subsequent writ petition, WP(C) No. 6775/2025, challenging this opinion was dismissed by the Gauhati High Court on February 9, 2026, primarily due to an unexplained delay and laches of 4 years, 7 months, and 7 days

The petitioner filed this review petition seeking to set aside the dismissal, alleging that her counsel and intermediaries failed to communicate the status of the case and that the initial police enquiry report was deficient

1. Whether the petitioner established sufficient "error apparent on the face of the record" or "discovery of new matter" to warrant a review of the judgment dated February 9, 2026, under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.

2. Whether the negligence or lack of communication by the petitioner’s engaged counsel constitutes a valid ground for reviewing a judgment dismissed on account of enormous delay and laches.

The court applied Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which limit review jurisdiction to the discovery of new evidence (unobtainable despite due diligence), mistakes apparent on the face of the record, or other analogous sufficient reasons

It relied on Malishwari v. K. Dutt Saguna & Anr. (2025) to distinguish review from appellate power, emphasizing that a review is not a "rehearing" and cannot be an "appeal in disguise"

Regarding the writ of certiorari, the court cited T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa (1954), affirming that the High Court does not reweigh evidence or act as an appellate court but only corrects jurisdictional errors or patent illegalities

The Court observed that the petitioner’s claim of non-communication by her counsel/agents did not constitute "new evidence" or an "error apparent" because the petitioner remained inactive for approximately 3.5 years after the COVID-19 pandemic ended

The Court held that such conduct reflected gross negligence rather than a lack of opportunity

It reasoned that the original dismissal was based on the petitioner's failure to exercise "due diligence" during the 1,682-day delay in filing the writ

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Tribunal followed the statutory mandate of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, to decide references within 60 days, and found no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's ex parte proceeding after 20 defaults by the petitioner

The Court emphasized that a review cannot be used to substitute a view or re-examine the police enquiry report which was already available at the time of the original writ

It held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the stringent requirements for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC

The Court reaffirmed that the delay of 4 years and 7 months remained unsatisfactorily explained and that negligence of counsel or intermediaries, established by a long-drawn process of reasoning, does not qualify as an error apparent on the face of the record

No order as to costs was made