JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. The present petition has been filed for review of an order dtd. 17/7/2019 passed in WP (C)/2650/2019. By the aforesaid order, the writ petition, which was filed against an order dtd. 15/12/2018 passed by the Foreigner's Tribunal-4, Barpeta (for short hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), has been dismissed and the order of the Tribunal declaring the petitioner, as a foreigner of post 25/3/1971 stream, has been upheld. 2. The review petition has been stated to be filed under Chapter-X of the High Court Rules read with Ss. 115 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. We have heard Shri AR Sikdar, learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as Shri RK Dev Choudhury, learned ASGI for the respondent no. 1. We have also heard Shri A Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal for the respondent nos. 2 and 3; Shri NK Das, learned State Counsel, Assam for the respondent no. 4; Mr. AI Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India for the respondent no. 5 as well as Ms. L Devi, learned Standing Counsel, State Co-ordinator, NRC for the respondent no. 6. 4. The grounds, which have been urged in this review petition, are extracted hereinbelow: (A) For that in passing the impugned order dtd. 17/7/2019 in WP(C) No. 2650/2019, grave error of Law and facts has been committed. The errors are apparent on the face of the record. (B) For that this Hon'ble Court decision has wrongly held that as per age (33 years) recorded in the Voter-List of 2016, the petitioner ought to have been Voter in the previous two Voter-Lists but he is not voter and no explanation is furnished. But the fact is that he is voter in both the voter list of 2005 and 2010 respectively in same village and those voter lists are annexed in the writ petition as Annexure No. 17 and 18 respectively. Thus, it is error on the face of the record to hold a view that the petitioner was not voter in previous two voter list. (C) For that the election officer has wrongly issued the certified copy of voter list of 1997 showing his father's name as Mazibar Rahman instead of correct name is Mazibar Khan. The voter list of 1997 i.e., Hand Written copy of voter list contents this mistake and it exhibited during trial. (C) For that the election officer has wrongly issued the certified copy of voter list of 1997 showing his father's name as Mazibar Rahman instead of correct name is Mazibar Khan. The voter list of 1997 i.e., Hand Written copy of voter list contents this mistake and it exhibited during trial. But in the issuing the certified copy of voter list (1997) and for their, the innocent voter like has been put under triable. The court of law ought to have look into these aspect, which been utterly failed without effort to give justice. the voter list of 1997 both incorrect and correct one are produced in the writ petition. Therefore the view taken in erroneous on the face of records. (D) For that the birth certificate is a public document; it was duly issued by the competent authority. The present Gaonburah was examined as the Gaonburah issuing certificate has expired. Therefore, oral evidence of DW2 cannot curtailed. Moreover, the available documentary and oral evidence has established linkage. As such view taken is erroneous on the face of records. Therefore, it is a fit case for review. (E) For that, petitioner's father is still alive and he may be permitted to examine his father to save his precious most right of citizenship. 5. At the time of hearing, emphasise has been given to ground no. (B) and (C). It has been urged that there was error committed by this Court in coming to a finding that since the age of the petitioner in the Voter List of 2016 was recorded as 33 years, his name ought to have appeared, at least, in previous two Voter Lists which were not there without any explanation. However, it has been contended that the name of the applicant had appeared in the Voter Lists of 2005 as well as 2010. 6. The second substantive ground is that because of the wrong committed by the Election Officer while issuing the certified copy of the Voter List of 1997, showing the name of the father of the petitioner, as Mazirbar Rahman instead of Mazibar Khan, the applicant should not be made to suffer. It is stated that the said Voter List of 1997 was a hand written copy in which a mistake was occurred. 7. It is stated that the said Voter List of 1997 was a hand written copy in which a mistake was occurred. 7. In support of his submissions, Shri Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following case laws: i) Shivdev Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1909 ; ii) BCCI and Anr. Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 741 ; and iii) Order dtd. 27/2/2020 passed in WP(C)/4116/2019 (Idrish Ali Vs. Union of India and Ors.). iv) Sirajul Hoque Vs. State of Assam reported in (2019) 5 SCC 534 . 8. In the case of Shivdev Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the power of review by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has laid down as follows: "10. The other contention of Mr. Gopal Singh pertains to the second order of Khosla, J., which in effect, reviews his prior order. Learned counsel contends that Art. 226 of the Constitution does not confer any power on the High Court to review its own order and, therefore, the second order of Khosla, J., was without jurisdiction. 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 of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. Here the previous order of Khosla, J., affected the interests of persons who were not made parties to the proceeding before him. It was at their instance and for giving them a hearing that Khosla J. entertained the second petition. In doing so, he merely did what the principles of natural justice required him to do. It is said that the respondents before us had no right to apply for review because they were not parties to the previous proceedings. As we have already pointed out, it is precisely because they were not made parties to the previous proceedings, though their interests were sought to be affected by the decision of the High Court, that the second application was e entertained by Khosla, J." 9. The case of BCCI and Anr. Vs. As we have already pointed out, it is precisely because they were not made parties to the previous proceedings, though their interests were sought to be affected by the decision of the High Court, that the second application was e entertained by Khosla, J." 9. The case of BCCI and Anr. Vs. Netaji Cricket Club (supra) has been cited to bring home the contention that rules of procedure or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. For ready reference, paragraph 92, which has been relied upon, is extracted hereinbelow: "92. Yet again in Lily Thomas (supra), this Court has laid down the law in the following terms : "52. The dictionary meaning of the word "review" is "the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement". It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute. This Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi Vs. Pradyuman-singhji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273 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. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error..." 10. The case of Idrish Ali (supra) has been cited to bring home the contention that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in a Tribunal. 11. The case of Sirajul Hoque (supra) has been cited regarding the discrepancy of name. 12. It is, accordingly submitted that the order dated 17.07.20219 by which the writ petition was dismissed is required to be reviewed. 13. Per contra, Shri A Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal has contended that the present application is nothing but an appeal in disguise. He further submits that the present petition is for review and unless the petitioner is able to make out a ground for review, the same is not maintainable. 13. Per contra, Shri A Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal has contended that the present application is nothing but an appeal in disguise. He further submits that the present petition is for review and unless the petitioner is able to make out a ground for review, the same is not maintainable. It is submitted that the present exercise is an afterthought as no error, apparent on the face of it, has been committed by this Court. 14. So far, as the ground no. (B) of the review petition is concerned, Shri Kalita, learned Standing Counsel has clarified that though a statement has been made that the petitioner was a voter whose name was enlisted in the voters list of 2005 and 2010, admittedly, the said voters lists were not exhibited before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, no error can be attributed in the judgment of this Court by which the opinion of the Tribunal dtd. 15/12/2018 has been upheld. 15. Drawing the attention of this Court to ground no. (C) regarding the name of the father of the petitioner, this Court in the judgment dtd. 17/7/2019 has duly considered the same and thereafter, rejected the said ground and therefore, no error apparent on the face of it is discernible. 16. In support of his submissions, Shri Kalita, learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dtd. 18/8/2022 in the case of S.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Ors., reported in. A Three Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as follows: "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 re-heard 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 fact of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the fact 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." 17. The learned Standing Counsel, FT, accordingly prays for dismissal of the present application. The aforesaid submission of Shri Kalita has been endorsed by the learned counsel for the other respondents. 18. At this stage, this Court is reminded of the settled position of law that to maintain a review petition, the conditions precedent have to be there i.e., error apparent on the face of the records, discovery of new facts which were not within the knowledge of the review applicant and would have a material bearing in the adjudication and thirdly, for any other sufficient reasons. 19. In the case of Shivdev Singh and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that there is no restriction in Article 226 of the Constitution of India for exercising the power of review as, it is a Court of plenary jurisdiction. However, it has been held that there are definitive limitations and are not to be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits, as the same could be a matter within the domain of an Appellate Court. It has further been clarified that a review power should not be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all matters of error committed by a subordinate court. 20. The aforesaid view has been uniformly followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including in the landmark case of Aribam Tuleswar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389 , a case which had gone from this High Court. 21. In the instant case, neither of the two principal grounds can be deemed to be grounds for review and would fulfil the conditions for preferring a review. It appears that the review petition has been structured and presented as if, it is an appeal against the order dtd. 21. In the instant case, neither of the two principal grounds can be deemed to be grounds for review and would fulfil the conditions for preferring a review. It appears that the review petition has been structured and presented as if, it is an appeal against the order dtd. 17/7/2019 and to say the least, no grounds of appeal are also discernible. This Court finds force in the contention of Shri Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, FT that a review petition cannot be equated with the original writ petition as, in a review petition, the grounds are circumscribed and limited. Shri Kalita is correct in pointing out that when the two Voter Lists of 2005 and 2010 were not even exhibited before the learned Tribunal which is an admitted fact and also verified from the record produced before us, it is failed to be understood as to how a case of review can be structured. We also agree with the submission of Shri Kalita regarding the second principal ground concerning the name of the father of the petitioner. This Court, in the judgment dtd. 17/7/2019, has duly considered the same and thereafter, rejected the said ground and no error, apparent on the face of it, is discernible. 22. In the instant case, we are of the opinion that in the findings reached by this Court, as recorded in the order dtd. 17/7/2019, no error apparent on the face of the records are seen therein and the same has been passed by taking into consideration all the relevant materials. It is an established law that the correctness of an order cannot be tested in a review petition for which the appellate forum is available. It is further laid down that a judgment may be erroneous but, that by itself, would not make it fit for review unless, the error is apparent on the face of the records. In the course of hearing, nothing could be shown on behalf of the petitioner that the judgment was palpably erroneous on the face of the records. 23. In the instant case, there was no document to substantiate the claim of the petitioner regarding his citizenship. 24. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that no grounds, whatsoever have been able to be made out warranting review of the findings arrived at by this Court in its order dtd. 17/7/2019. 25. 23. In the instant case, there was no document to substantiate the claim of the petitioner regarding his citizenship. 24. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that no grounds, whatsoever have been able to be made out warranting review of the findings arrived at by this Court in its order dtd. 17/7/2019. 25. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. 26. No order, as to costs.