Inherent power to review exists when decisions are made without jurisdiction, allowing for restoration of appeal to avoid injustice.

1. This petition under S.114 read with O.47 of the CPC is filed for review of the judgment and decree dated 4-12-2006 passed in R. F. A. 39 of 2001 dismissing the appeal of the appellant petitioner on merit in absence of the learned Counsel for the parties, preferred under S.96 read with O.41 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 25-9-2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala in Money Suit No. 25, of 2000, whereby, the claim of the appellant petitioner was rejected.

2. Aggrieved by, the appellant petitioner filed special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking special leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 6149 of 2007 which was also dismissed on withdrawal. The order of the Apex Court reads as follows :
"Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this petition stating that she will move the High Court.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn."

3. The case of the appellant petitioner was that he was issued work order for the work of construction of Sale Hall at Sundar Tilla Market under Mohanpur (Sidhal) vide No. F. 4(14) Agri / EE / W / 85-86/3406-11 dated 7-3-1986 and for the work of construction of Sale Hall Development Market (Block I and II) at Hapania under Sadar, West Tripura vide work order No. 4(36) Agr / EE / W / 89-90 / 1082 dated 2-8-1989 and Work Order No. 4(36) - Agri / EE / W / 89-90/12-06-1209 dated 9-8-1989. According to the appellant petitioner, during construction of the said work, he was asked to execute some extra works. Accordingly, after completion of the works, final bill was prepared, but he was not paid in full of the final bill. Consequently, he filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala praying for a money decree against the defendant respondents towards recovery of the cost incurred for execution of the said works.

4. On pleading of the parties, learned Court below framed the following issues :
A. Is the suit maintainable and has the plaintiff cause of action for the present suit?
B. Has the plaintiff completed the work as per terms and condition of work order? If so, what is the cost of the work?
C. Is the plaintiff entitled to get money decree in this suit with interest and cost, as prayed for?
D. What other relief / reliefs the parties are entitled to get?

5. The appellant petitioner examined himself as P. W. 1 by exhibiting as many as 25 documents as exhibits and the defendants respondents examined only one witness, namely, Dipak Ghosh, as D. W. 1 and placed on records as many as 17 exhibits (Ext. A to Ext. Q).

6. After considering the materials as well as evidences on record, the learned Civil Judge analyzed each issue for adjudication and by judgment dated 25-9-2001 dismissed the suit rejecting the claim of the appellant petitioner.

7. Dissatisfied with the said judgment, the appellant petitioner preferred R. F. A. No. 39 of 2001 before this Court an