JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : (S. P. Khaund, J) Heard Md. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner Also heard Mr. P.B. Bhattacharyya, learned CGC, Mr J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. H. Kuli, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr H.K. Hazarika, learned Additional Junior Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. An application under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Chapter-X of the Gauhati High Court Rules, has been filed with prayer to review the order dated 20.08.2025, passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition(C) No. 3671/2025, against the petitioner. On a reference by the SP(B), respondent No. 6, being Ref. Case No. 12/2007, the proceeding of FT Case No. 123/2007 was initiated against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner appeared before the Tribunal on two dates, but he failed to appear on few dates thereafter. This case vide order dated 17.04.2025, was kept “filed” by the Tribunal, but, it was again revived vide order dated 10.06.2022, and thereafter notice was issued. It is further submitted that the petitioner never received any notice issued by the Tribunal, but the learned Tribunal based on the report of the Process Server held that, the notice was duly served as per the provisions of Order 3 (5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals), Order, 1964 and since the petitioner failed to appear before the Tribunal after service of notice, the Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to discharge his burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the FOREIGNERS ACT 1946, and vide order dated 08.11.2023, the petitioner was declared as a foreigner who entered India, (Assam) after 25.03.1971. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was picked up by the police authorities on 24.05.2025, and then he was apprised of the impugned ex-parte opinion dated 08.11.2023, declaring him to be a foreigner of Post 1971 stream, and as such the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 3671/2025, challenging the ex-parte opinion dated 08.11.2023. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he did not receive the notice issued by the Tribunal after the case was restored by the Tribunal on 10.06.2022, and when fresh notice was issued upon him. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he did not receive the notice issued by the Tribunal after the case was restored by the Tribunal on 10.06.2022, and when fresh notice was issued upon him. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Hojai district and all his documents pertaining to his citizenship are from Hojai district. He used to reside in Karbi Anglong temporarily on lease or rent for the sake of his livelihood. Occasionally, he used to shift his residence and at that point of time, when the notice was freshly issued against him, he had shifted his residence from Rong Nagar to Chinargaon and the notice was served as per Order 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 at Rong Nagar and thus the petitioner was not aware of the notice. It is further submitted that to substantiate his claim of citizenship, the petitioner had annexed voter’s lists of 1966, 1970, 1997, 2005, 2016 and 2019, along with other relevant documents. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner was issued a passport by the concerned authorities after observing due process of law. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this is a fit case for review owing to the presence of error apparent on the face of the record. It has been held in para-8 of the order dated 20.08.2025 in WP(C)/3671/2025, that on 02.10.2011, the notice of the proceeding was duly served on the petitioner. As per order dated 15.09.2012 and 11.10.2012, the petitioner was present before the Tribunal. The attendance sheet of the petitioner before the Tribunal on 15.09.2012, 11.10.2012 and 25.03.2014, are available in the Tribunal's record at pages 51, 52 and 53. On 25.03.2014, the petitioner had also filed a petition bearing petition No. 2038, seeking further time for appearance and submission of documents and the said petition is available at page 54 of the Trial Court Records. It is also noted that on the petitioner's consistent default in appearance, the learned Tribunal had adjourned the matter and thereby sufficient time was accorded to the petitioner to defend himself, but the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity so given. 7. It is also noted that on the petitioner's consistent default in appearance, the learned Tribunal had adjourned the matter and thereby sufficient time was accorded to the petitioner to defend himself, but the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity so given. 7. It is submitted that this Court did not appreciate the fact that the case was kept pending for seven years and it was again revived on 10.06.2022, and as such fresh notice was issued upon the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner in this instant case ought to have been discussed and determined after fresh notice was served upon him on 10.06.2022, and not on the basis of the service of notice on the petitioner way back in the year 2011. It is further contended that the other error apparent on the face of the record is that no proper enquiry or verification was carried out while referring the case by the authorities concerned to the Foreigners Tribunal. It is averred that the Tribunal issued notice on the temporary residence of the petitioner and not in his permanent address, which is in the district of Hojai. 8. It is averred that this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of judgments has held that the initial burden before referring the petitioner to a Foreigner's Tribunal lies upon the respondent authorities and a complete and correct verification report has to be prepared before referring the petitioner to the Foreigner's Tribunal. It is submitted that this Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the failure of the respondent authorities for not ascertaining the correct and permanent address of the petitioner and for their failure in exercising their initial burden upon them has been the reason behind which the petitioner has not received the notice of the Foreigner's Tribunal when it was freshly issued after the case was revived on 10.06.2022. This leads to the discovery of the voters list of 1985, which the petitioner inspite of exercising due diligence could not annex the same in the writ petition and it was obtained on 20.06.2025, and this amounts to new discovery to file a petition with prayer for review of the impugned order. 9. This leads to the discovery of the voters list of 1985, which the petitioner inspite of exercising due diligence could not annex the same in the writ petition and it was obtained on 20.06.2025, and this amounts to new discovery to file a petition with prayer for review of the impugned order. 9. It is submitted that the voters list of 1985 along with the voters list of 1997 are vital documents to prove the petitioner's linkage with his parents, both of whose names have appeared in the voters list of 1966 and 1970. It is further submitted that this court in similarly situated cases on several occasions have set aside the impugned ex-parte opinion and have provided an additional opportunity to the petitioners to prove their case before the Foreigner's Tribunal. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for a review of the order dated 20.08.2025, passed by this Court in WP(C) 3671/2025. The petitioner has also prayed to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 20.08.2025, and declare the petitioner a citizen of India on the strength of the documents annexed by the petitioner in support of his Indian citizenship. 10. Learned counsel for the FT Matters, Mr. J. Payeng has submitted that the petitioner has prayed not for a review but for altering a judgment decided on merits. To consider the voters list of 1985, at this juncture would be considering this case on the merits. The submission of the petitioner on the basis of which the petitioner has sought relief appears to be in the form of an appeal and not a review petition. The submissions of the petitioner has to be delved into deeply and through a review petition, the submissions of the petitioner cannot be considered, as the grievance of the petitioner does not appear to be a grievance on any error on the face of the record, but grievances on the merits of the case, which cannot be decided by a review petition and this petition ought to be dismissed. It appears to be more of an appeal rather than a petition for review of the order impugned by the petitioner. 11. It appears to be more of an appeal rather than a petition for review of the order impugned by the petitioner. 11. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner's stance that service of notice was not properly considered by the Tribunal, has already been dealt with by this Court as the petitioner has taken this stand earlier in the WP(C) 3671/2025. It is submitted that notice was properly served and after enquiry, the petitioner has deliberately shifted his residence without informing the authorities and therefore, notice could be served upon the petitioner under Order 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. Now the petitioner cannot take the privilege of notice not being properly served upon him. Mr. J. Payeng has relied on the decision of this Court in Ayub Ali vs. The Union of India reported in 2016 (1) GLT 273, wherein it has been held that:- “He further submits that section 9 of the F.T. Act 1946 requires that the duty of proving that a person is an Indian citizen is on the person who claims to be Indian citizen, and not, on the State. Unfortunately, despite granting several adjournments, the appellants herein failed to discharge their burden which law enjoins upon them. Being so, having passed the order declaring the appellants as foreigner, the Tribunal had committed no wrong whatsoever.“ 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions at the bar. 13. The learned counsel for the FT matters had also vehemently opposed the prayer made in the earlier writ petition WP(C)/3671/2025, against the the impugned opinion as the conduct of the petitioner reflects deliberate and wilful default on the part of the petitioner to participate in the proceeding, even after due service of notice. 14. It is true that the proceeding against the petitioner was taken up in two phases. The proceeding of FT case No. 123/2007, was kept filed vide order dated 17.04.2015, and thereafter, it was revived vide order dated 10.06.2022, pursuant to the judgment and order of this Court dated 14.05.2018, passed by this court in WP(C) 6280/2016, in the case of Tuta Mia @Tota Mia , reported in 2018 (3) GLT 652. The proceeding of FT case No. 123/2007, was kept filed vide order dated 17.04.2015, and thereafter, it was revived vide order dated 10.06.2022, pursuant to the judgment and order of this Court dated 14.05.2018, passed by this court in WP(C) 6280/2016, in the case of Tuta Mia @Tota Mia , reported in 2018 (3) GLT 652. After the case was restored to file, notice was issued and duly served in accordance with the provisions of Order 3(5)(f) of the Foreigner's (Tribunals) Order 1964.It was held by this Court in WP(C) 3671/2025, vide order dated 20.08.2025, that the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 25.10.2022 and 18.11.2023 in FT case No. 123/2007, cannot be faulted with. After scrutinizing the Trial Court Records, it was held by this Court that as per order dated 02.10.2011, the notice of the proceeding was duly served on the petitioner. As per the order dated 15.09.2012 and 11.10.2012, the petitioner was present before the learned Tribunal. The attendance sheet of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal on 15.09.2012, 11.10.2012 and 25.03.2014 are available in the Tribunal's record at pages-51, 52 and 53. On 25.03.2014, the petitioner had also filed a petition No. 2038 seeking further time for appearance and submission of documents. The said petition is available at page-54 of the Tribunal’s Record. 15. It is thus apparent that the petitioner was aware of the proceeding since 2011, and he did not appear before the Tribunal after procuring several adjournments and finally the Tribunal was impelled to file this case vide order dated 17.04.2015. When the case was restored to file, after a direction of this court in WP(C) 6280/2016, reported in Tuta Mia @Tota Mia , reported in 2018 (3) GLT 652 , fresh notice was again issued to the petitioner and this notice was served as per procedure under Order 3(5)(f) of the Foreigner's (Tribunal's) Order 1964. 16. When the case was restored to file, after a direction of this court in WP(C) 6280/2016, reported in Tuta Mia @Tota Mia , reported in 2018 (3) GLT 652 , fresh notice was again issued to the petitioner and this notice was served as per procedure under Order 3(5)(f) of the Foreigner's (Tribunal's) Order 1964. 16. Section 114 of the CPC reads as:- “Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved:- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.” 17. Order 47 of the CPC reads as:- Application for review of judgment.-( 1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. [Explanation.- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]” 18. It is held that in this case at hand, there does not appear to be any sufficient reason to allow the review petition. The ground on which the review petition has been preferred has already been dealt with in connection with WP(C) No. 3671/2025. The facts and circumstances of the cases of Bharati Rabidas vs. The Union Of India in WPC 2871/2019, Junu Begum @Junu Nissa vs. The Union Of India & 6 Ors in WPC 4991/2020 and Batisa Khatun @Bhatisa Khatoon vs. The Union Of India & 6 Ors in connection with WPC No. 5915/2018, relied upon by the petitioner does not appear to be similar to this case. 19. The instant case is not a case to be remanded back and accord an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the proceeding when the petitioner had neglected to contest the proceeding despite the fact that he was wary of the proceeding against him. There appears to be no justified ground to accord an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the proceeding as the petitioner was aware about the proceedings against him pending in the Foreigner’s Tribunal since the year, 2011. Now at this eleventh hour, when he has been arrested and forwarded to custody, the petitioner has approached this Court for succour. Moreover, the petitioner's grounds cannot be dealt with in a review petition. 20. It would be apt to reiterate that the petitioner’s submissions that the discovery of the voters list of 1985 after the WP(C) No.3671/2025 was disposed of cannot be considered to be a discovery where a review of the order impugned, is applicable. It is manifest that due diligence was not exercised by the petitioner as he was aware of pendency of a case, questioning his citizenship since the year 2011. It would be also apt to reiterate that no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is discernible nor any sufficient reasons to review the impugned order is noticed. 21. In view of the foregoing discussions, this petition is dismissed as this petition is bereft of merits. 22. It would be also apt to reiterate that no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is discernible nor any sufficient reasons to review the impugned order is noticed. 21. In view of the foregoing discussions, this petition is dismissed as this petition is bereft of merits. 22. No order as to costs.