Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KALYAN RAI SURANA
Jamuna Shil Sarkar W/o Late Chanu Sarkar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by the General Manager, NF Railway – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
1. Heard Mr. A. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the NF Railway.
2. By filing this review petition, the petitioner has prayed for review/modification/alteration of order dated 30.11.2023, passed by this Court in MFA No. 83/2019, by which not only the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, but also on merit.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he left for the Court from his home at 09:30 AM, but on reaching midway towards the Court he realized that the file which he was studying in the morning was left on the table at his home and therefore, he went back to get the file but by the time he reached back, due to traffic jam it was already 11:45 AM and in the meanwhile, the matter was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred this application for setting aside the order of dismissal of the connected appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the order of this Court dated 18.09.2025, wherein the Court query was to the effect whether apart from recalling that part of the order by which the connected MFA was dismissed for non-prosecution, but
The dismissal of an appeal on merit without affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard is contrary to principles of natural justice and a valid ground for review under CPC.
Inherent power to review exists when decisions are made without jurisdiction, allowing for restoration of appeal to avoid injustice.
A review petition may be maintained only upon discovery of new evidence or manifest errors; it cannot serve as an appeal to reconsider resolved issues.
The court emphasized that review powers are limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and cannot be used to substitute a previous judgment or reargue the case.
The Tribunal must ensure disciplinary proceedings afford reasonable opportunity to defend, even when inquiry is ex parte.
Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised to rehear a case or correct an erroneous decision without evidence of an error apparent on the face of the record.
A review petition must show an apparent error on the record to succeed, as delay does not extinguish the right to continuing benefits like family pensions.
The court reinforced that review petitions are not an opportunity to re-argue cases or appeal decisions already made unless clear, patent errors exist.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
