Gauhati High Court
Ainuddin Alias Md Ainuddin Ali vs The Union Of India And Ors on 24 July, 2026
Author: S.K. Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010031392026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Review.Pet./1756/2026
AINUDDIN ALIAS MD AINUDDIN ALI
VILL. NO2 NOPA
P.O. ANJUKPANI
P.S. SAMAGURI
DIST NAGAON. ASSAM-782139
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
HOME DEPTT.
NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI
------------
Advocate for : TAMAL KUMAR DEY
Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
ORDER
24.07.2026
(S.K. Medhi, J)
Heard Shri T.K. Dey, learned counsel for the applicant, who by means of
this application has prayed for a review of the judgment and order dated
Page No.# 2/6
18.12.2025 passed in WP(C)/1534/2019.
2. Shri Dey, the learned counsel has submitted that thereare errors apparent
on the face of the judgment. He has submitted that though in the Voters List of
1993, one Musstt. Rohima Khatun has been projected to be the sister, the same
has held to be not revealed in the written statement or even in the writ petition.
It is also submitted there is no reference to the Jamabandi in the impugned
judgment.
3. On the other hand, Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home
Department has submitted that the petitioner has not been able to make out a
case for invoking the review jurisdiction which is circumscribed.He has
submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the records and the
petitioner do not meet the other two requirements which are to be followed
while invoking review jurisdiction.
4. While the power of a Writ Court in exercise of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India would include the power to review as the jurisdiction is
plenary in nature, the principles laid down in Order 47 Rule 1 R/w Section 114
of the CPC are required to be followed. This power exists to prevent miscarriage
of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors which are however not
unlimited and are subject to the limitations akin to the provisions of Order 47 of
the CPC.In this connection, one may gainfully refer to the decision of Shivdeo
Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909 wherein a
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had made the following
observations:
“8…It is sufficient to say that there is nothing in Art. 226 of the
Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review
which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage
Page No.# 3/6of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it…”
5. In the subsequent case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak
Sharma and Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC 1047, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has further explained and elaborated the aforesaid principles in the following
manner:
“It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab
(AIR 1963 SC 1909) there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to
preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres
in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or
to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are
definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of
review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the
knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by
him at the time when the order was made;it may be exercised where
some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may
also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised
on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be
the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused
with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all
manner of errors committed by the Sub-ordinate Court.”
6. In the instant case, it is seen that in the Review Petition, no specific
grounds have been urged which is a requirement of the Gauhati High Court
Rules. Nonetheless, in the interest of justice and by overlooking the
technicalities, even when the ground argued examined, it is seen from the
written statement that there is no mention of the sister of the petitioner.
7. Shri Dey, the learned counsel by referring to the written statement has
drawn the attention of this Court towards the last part which mentions as
follows:
Page No.# 4/6
“…
3. A copy of Voter List of 1971 showing name of the father of the
Opp.Party along with his other family members.
4. A copy of Voter List of 1993 showing name of the father, mother, elder
brother of the Opp. Party along with other family members.
…”
The said part is admittedly not a part of the pleadings and in any case, do
not reflect any name of the sister of the applicant.We are of the considered
opinion that the said fact would otherwise also not make any material change in
the decision taken by us in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction. The reference to a
Jamabandi would also not constitute to be a ground to invoke the review
powers.
8. In the case of S Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors .
reported in (2022) 17 SCC 255 a Three Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has reiterated the law laid down in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs.
Mayawati & Ors. reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 wherein the following principles on
exercise of review powers have been laid down:
“20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are
maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after
the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the
petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju
Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean “a reason
Page No.# 5/6
sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”.
The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur
Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to
reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original
hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest
on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in
miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent
error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a
ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an
error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the
domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be
advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the
time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”
9. We are of the opinion that no case for invoking the review jurisdiction is
Page No.# 6/6
made out and accordingly the review petition is dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant
