The legal principle established is that a review petition can be allowed based on a misconception of fact under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. R. C. Saikia, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department and Mr. N. H. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 7439/2016/respondent No.5 in this review petition.

2. The present review petition is preferred against the order dated 19.07.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 7439/2016. The said writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner (respondent No. 5 in this review petition) challenging the recommendation of the review petitioner (respondent No. 5 in writ petition) to be the President of the School Management Development Committee (SMDC), Paschim Banbhag H.S. School, Nalbari in terms of the order issued by the Inspector of Schools dated 04.10.2016. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court without hearing the present review petitioner (private respondent No. 5 in the said writ petition) as none appeared for the private respondent No. 5.

3. While disposing the said writ petition, this Court had taken into consideration the submission made on behalf of the writ petitioner that in terms of notification dated 24.06.2016 which relates to selection of President, Vice President of SMDC and the Inspector of Schools after consultation with the Principal/Headmaster and local people was to forward two names to the Director, Secondary Education, Assam for the post of President and vice President with the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner.

4. It was submitted that the Inspector of Schools duly recommended the name of the writ petitioner along with another person, namely, Sri Dibakar Chandra Kalita for appointment as President of SMDC and also recommended the name of respondent No. 5 (the review petitioner) and another person, namely, Sri Dimbeswar Borah as Vice President of the SMDC.

5. It has been submitted by Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the review petitioner (the respondent No. 5 in the said writ petition) that though he was absent, the writ petitioner did not project the correct factual position about the claim made by the writ petitioner that the name of the writ petitioner was duly recommended along with the another person for appointment as the President of the SMDC as mentioned in para No. 5 of the order sought to be reviewed.

6. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the review petitioner, relying on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 741 has submitted that a review would lie if 'sufficient reason' exists as provided under order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC , which expression is wideenough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an advocate.

Para No. 90 of the aforesaid decision reads as follows.

'Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words 'sufficient reason' in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an Advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine "actus curiae neminem gravabit".

7. It has been submitted that the misconception of fact in the Court arose out of wrong submission made on behalf of the writ petitioner that the Inspector of schools duly recommended the name of the writ petitioner along with another person for appointment as the President of the SMDC which, in fact, was never done and as such, it amounts to mistake of fact which would be covered by the expression 'sufficient reason' under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC and as such, it is a fit case of review.

8. On the other hand, Mr. N.H. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in WP(C)No. 7439/2016 has tried to justify h