Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/15 vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 18 June, 2025
Author: M. Nandi
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana, Malasri Nandi
Page No.# 1/15
GAHC010030342020
2025:GAU-AS:8058
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./31/2020
ELIZA BEGUM @ ELIZA KHATUN
D/O- SWAHID ALI, W/O- TAMEZ ALI @ TAMER ALI, R/O- VILL.-
BANGALPARA, P.S. HAJO, DIST.- KAMRUP(R), ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI-1.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
KAMRUP(R)
P.O. AMINGAON
DIST.- KAMRUP(R)
ASSAM.
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP(R)
AMINGAON.
5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NEW DELHI.
6:THE ASSAM STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NRC
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-5
Page No.# 2/15
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R SIKDAR, MD A ALI,MR. S I TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ECI
Linked Case : WP(C)/3189/2016
ELIZA BEGUM @ ELIZA KHATUN
D/O. SWAHID ALI
W/O. TAMEZ ALI @ TAMER ALI
R/O. BANGALPARA
P.S. HAJO
DIST. KAMRUP R
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
SHASTRI BHAWAN
TILOK MARG
NEW DELHI-01.
------------
Advocate for : MR.M H TALUKDAR
Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS
Page No.# 3/15
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Date : 18-06-2025
(M. Nandi, J)
Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. J.
Payeng, learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. M. Islam,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for
the ECI; and Mr. H.K Hazarika, learned Government Advocate for the State
respondent.
2. By filing this application under Chapter X of the High Court Rules R/W
Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the
petitioner has prayed for review of the order dated 07.02.2018, passed by this
Court in WP(C) 3189/2016.
3. The case of the review petitioner, in brief, is that a reference has been
made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Kamrup to give opinion as regards
the status of the review petitioner as a citizen of India. In reference of the
same, a FT Case vide No. 1561/2008 was registered against the review
petitioner. But subsequently, the said case has been re-numbered as FT case
No.54/2015. The contention of the review petitioner is that there was no proper
investigation and no main grounds have been disclosed in the notice served
upon her.
4. On receipt of the notice, the review petitioner appeared before the
Page No.# 4/15
Tribunal and filed written statement wherein it was contended that she is the
daughter of one Shahid Ali, a resident of Village - Dighali Pathar Matikhula, PS
and PO- Barpathar under Golaghat district. Her grandfather's name was Shutka
Sheikh, who was citizen of India having legacy data. She claimed that she is a
citizen of India by birth having sufficient documents in this regard. While filing
written statement, she enclosed 10(ten) nos. of documents including legacy
data of her grandfather, voter lists of 1989, 1994 and voter identity card of her
father and certificates of gaonburah and Panchayat Secretary.
5. The further case of the review petitioner is that the petitioner was
examined before the Tribunal along with some other witnesses. In her evidence,
the petitioner claimed that her grandfather Shutka Sheikh was enrolled as a
voter since 1966 being the resident of village - Tapabari and subsequently
resided in village - Dighali Pathar, Matikhula under Golaghat district. The review
petitioner also claimed that her parents are permanent resident and voters of
village - Dighali Pathar, Matikhula of Golaghat district. She was married to one
Tamez Ali and thereby, she became the resident of village - Bangalpara under
Hajo P.S in Kamrup district and her name is recorded in the voter list along with
her husband.
6. The review petitioner also stated that her father Shahid Ali adduced
evidence before the Tribunal and was also cross-examined as DW-2. The other
witness gaonburah was examined as DW-3 who has also supported the case of
the petitioner that she is the daughter of Shahid Ali and Nubiran Begum of
Village - Dighali Pathar Matikhula of Golaghat district. The husband of the
petitioner also examined as DW-4 who stated before the Tribunal that he got
married to the review petitioner in the year 2001 and since then, they are living
Page No.# 5/15
together as husband and wife.
7. The review petitioner's case was finally disposed of by an order dated
27.04.2016. The learned Member, Foreigners' Tribunal has appreciated the
evidence on record and disbelieved the documents and the oral evidence of the
review petitioner and her witnesses and declared the review petitioner as a
foreigner of post 25.03.1971.
8. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Tribunal
dated 27.04.2016, passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup(R) at Hajo, the
review petitioner has preferred a writ petition before this Court vide WP(C)
3189/2016 which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2018.
Hence, this review petition.
9. The learned counsel for the review petitioner has argued that the order
dated 07.02.2018 rejecting the writ petition vide WP(C) 3189/2016, has caused
grave error of law and facts, amounting to serious injustice and violation of
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
10. It is also submitted that there is no settled law prescribing to file written
statement and requiring to disclose every details in the written statement. The
Apex Court in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal II has held that the proceedee is
to show only of his/her proof of citizenship. Moreover, the proceeding is a
summary in nature. Mere scrutiny of the documents and oral examination of the
witnesses are enough to ascertain one's citizenship. The petitioner's
grandparents were voters in 1966 and the parents are voters in the subsequent
years. Her father was examined as DW-2 and gaonburah was examined as DW-
Page No.# 6/15
3 who has seen her parents. Thus, her linkage is well established proving her
citizenship.
11. Further submission of learned counsel for the review petitioner is that
citizenship right is the most precious right and due care should be taken in
passing an adverse order. Some minor mistake in recording oral evidence is not
enough to discard the prime and documentary evidence as observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (Supra). But this has
not been followed in deciding the instant case and picking up the minor mistake
in the evidence shall not be a ground to pass the adverse order ignoring the
prime evidence.
12. It is further contended by learned counsel for the review petitioner that
the name of the petitioner's father namely Shahid Ali and brother's namely
Nobirul Ali, Faizul Ali, Rofiqul Ali etc are included in the final list of NRC.
Therefore, the case of the petitioner also reviewable in the light of the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Kuddus Vs. Union of India vide Civil
Appeal No.5012/2019 dated 17.05.2019.
13. According to learned counsel for the review petitioner, the oral evidence of
gaonburah cannot be discarded even if the certificate is not accepted. It is also
not fair to raise question upon the evidentiary value of the deposition of the
gaonburah when there is no rebuttal evidence of the State. Accordingly, the
learned counsel for the review petitioner prays to review of the order dated
07.02.2018, passed by this Court in WP(C) 3189/2016.
14. In response, learned counsel for the F.T matters, Mr. J. Payeng has
Page No.# 7/15
submitted that the power of the Court to consider the review petition is very
limited. The power of review can be exercised only on the discovery of new and
important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. But the
grounds taken by the learned counsel for the review petitioner are the grounds
of appeal, not of review of the order.
15. It is further submitted that a review is not a routine procedure. It is a
settled position of law that a review of a judgment is a serious step and
reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or a patent mistake
or like grave error has crept in earlier order. According to learned counsel for the
State, the learned counsel for the review petitioner has failed to identify in this
case the error apparent on the face of the record. As such, the review petition is
liable to be dismissed.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
trial court record, it reveals that after considering the evidence of the witnesses
as well as the documents submitted by the review petitioner, the Tribunal
declared the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971. Against the said
order, the review petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court vide WP(C)
No.3189/2016 which was also dismissed. The part observation of the Court in
WP(C) No.3189/2016 is reproduced as follows -
"Petitioner did not disclose the date or year of her birth and
consequently her age. She also did not mention the place of
her birth. She neither disclosed the name of her mother nor
that of her paternal grandmother, not to speak of brothers and
sisters.
Page No.# 8/15
In her evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit on
03.12.2015, petitioner stated more or less the same
thing as in her written statement. However, in the
introductory paragraph of the affidavit, petitioner
disclosed her age as 33 years. If the petitioner was 33
years of age in 2015, it would mean that she was born
sometime in the year 1982 (2015-33 = 1982).
....
The petitioner in her written statement had stated
that she had married Tamez Ali on 08.04.2000. But
Tamez Ali, DW-4, in his evidence-in-chief, stated that
he had married the petitioner in the year 2001.
Therefore, such vital inconsistency in the evidence
of the witnesses would render such evidence highly
suspect.
....
Therefore, what is evident from the above is that
the narrative presented by the petitioner suffers
from multiple material contradictions and omissions
rendering the version of the petitioner highly
suspect and improbable. The crucial fact of linkage
with Suthka Sheikh of Ext-2 as her paternal
grandfather to a period prior to 25.03.1971, which is
Page No.# 9/15
the cutoff date for identification of the foreigners in
the State of Assam as per Section 6A of the
Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended, could not be
proved by adducing cogent, reliable and admissible
evidence.
In such circumstances, we do not find any good
ground to interfere with the impugned order passed
by the Tribunal. Finding of the Tribunal that
petitioner is a foreigner, who had illegally entered
into India (Assam) from Bangladesh after
25.03.1971 is accordingly affirmed."
17. Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC deals with an application for review. It reads as
under -
"1. Application for review of judgment (1) Any person
considering himself aggrieved--
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed,
but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed,
or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be
produced by him at the time when the decree was passed
Page No.# 10/15
or order made, or on account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record or for any other
sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree
passed or order made against him, may apply for a review
of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made
the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree on order
may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the
pendency of an appeal by some other party except where
the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and
the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present
to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the
review.
Explanation--The fact that the decision on a question of law
on which the judgment of the Court is based has been
reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a
superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for
the review of such judgment."
18. It is apparent from the bare perusal of this Section that the power of review
can be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. It was laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V. Narayana
Reddy, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034 that the Court cannot review an order unless it
is satisfied that there is a material error manifest on the face of the record,
which would result in the miscarriage of justice. It was observed as follows -
"18. A glance at the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that
Page No.# 11/15
a review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery
of new and important matters or evidence which, after
exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of
the applicant or could not be produced by him when the
decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of
some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
or (iii) for any other sufficient reason.
19. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and
Others, 1980 Supp SCC 562, this Court observed that a
review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court
is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the
face of the order, would result in a miscarriage of justice or
undermine its soundness. The observations made are as
under -
'12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved
to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any
feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard.
But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that
material error, manifest on the face of the order,
undermines its soundness or results in a miscarriage of
justice. In Sow Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh Habib,
(1975) 1 SCC 674, this Court observed -
'A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant
resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or
patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by
Page No.# 12/15
judicial fallibility. The present stage is not a virgin
ground but a review of an earlier order which has the
normal feature of finality.'
19. In Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 715
stating that an error that is not self-evident and one that has to be detected by
the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face
of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under -
"7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be
strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1
CPC.
8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury,
(1995) 1 SCC 170 while quoting with approval a passage
from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma,
(1979) 4 SCC 389 this Court once again held that review
proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be
strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1
CPC.
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to
review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent
on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident
and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can
hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the
record justifying the court to exercise its power of review
under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of this jurisdiction
Page No.# 13/15
under Order 47 rule 1 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 be 'an appeal in disguise''.
20. In the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SC 224, it is observed
and held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake
but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of
the statute dealing with the exercise of power.
21. In the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji,
(1971) 3 SCC 844, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power of review
is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by
necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise.
22. What can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the proceedings
has been dealt with and considered by the Apex Court in the case of T.C.
Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440. It is held that such an error is an error
which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision.
23. In view of the aforesaid legal propositions, it can be said that an
application for review would lie when the order suffers from an error apparent
on the face of the record and permitting the same to continue would lead to
failure of justice. The power of review can also be exercised by the Court in the
event of discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes place which
despite exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant
or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. An
application for review would also lie if the order has been passed on account of
Page No.# 14/15
some mistake. Furthermore, an application for review shall also lie for any other
sufficient reason.
24. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in
appeal over its own order. A re-hearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It
constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or
pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent
jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
25. In view of the scope as discussed above, if the submissions of the learned
counsel for the review petitioner is tested in the light of the material available in
the record including on perusal of the order dated 07.02.2018, it would be seen
that the aforesaid aspects of the matter has been duly considered by the
Tribunal and subsequently, by this Court while considering the findings of the
writ petition vide no. WP(C) 3189/2016.
26. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner do
not relate to the scope of review. Since the opinion/order under review has
been passed by the Division Bench of this Court considering the evidence of the
witnesses before the Tribunal and the documents submitted by the review
petitioner and the material available on record. No error apparent on the face of
the record could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the review petitioner.
Hence, the submissions do not render any support.
27. The review petitioner is trying to seek a re-hearing of the appeal which is
not within the scope of the review. The learned counsel could not point out any
error apparent on the face of the record and the submissions made do not fall
Page No.# 15/15
within the parameters of Section 114 R/W Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
28. Having considered the matter, this Court finds that no grounds of review
are made out. The review petition is absolutely devoid of merits and is
dismissed with costs.
29. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
