JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr.H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the review petitioners and Mr. A. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. J.R. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. By filing this instant review petition under Chapter X of the Gauhati High Court Rules read with Section 114 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the petitioners pray for review of the common Judgment & Order dated 22.08.2024 passed by this Court in WP(C) Nos. 76 & 77 of 2024. 2. Brief facts of the writ petition has been set out in paragraph Nos. 2 & 3 of the Judgment & Order dated 22.08.2024 and therefore, for the sake of brevity and convenience, the same is being abstracted hereunder:- “ 2. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 floated NIT dated 10.11.2023 for Supply, Fixing, Testing and Commissioning (SITC) of LED Flood Light in Dampa Tiger Reserve Forest (DTRF) area from near BP No. - 2313 to near 2305/2-RI along Indo-Bangladesh Border in Mizoram State for approximate length of 60 Km. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 53,93,97,046.00 which is divided into two (2) parts namely, Part-A and Part-B. Part-A is for the execution of the work amounting to Rs. 47,57,00,082.00 and Part-B which is for the maintenance and amounting to Rs. 6,36,96,964.00. The completion period for the project is 15 months and the time given for operation of maintenance after handing over the project is 12 months. As per the NIT, the last date and time of submission of online tender was up to 26.12.2023 by 11 AM (IST). The technical bid was to be opened at 11:30 AM of 26.12.2023 and the date and time of opening of the financial bid was to be intimated later on. 3. Three (3) firms including the writ petitioners participated in the tender process and submitted their respective bids. The technical bid was opened on 26.12.2023 as was scheduled and it was then that, the petitioners came to learn about the deficiencies in the technical bid of the respondent No. 8. The petitioners therefore submitted their representations before the respondent authorities but despite assurance given to them as the grievance projected were not addressed and the respondent authorities proceeded to open the price bids on 12.01.2024. The petitioners therefore submitted their representations before the respondent authorities but despite assurance given to them as the grievance projected were not addressed and the respondent authorities proceeded to open the price bids on 12.01.2024. As per the price bids offer, the petitioners were found to be L3 while the private respondent Nos. 7 & 8 were placed at L1 and L2 respectively. Since the grievance projected by the petitioners was not addressed, the petitioners filed WP(C) No. 434/2024 in the Principal Seat of this Court which on transfer has been renumbered as WP(C) No. 76/2024. During the pendency of the writ petition, since the respondent authorities have issued the Letter of Award (LOA) in favor of the respondent No. 8 on 30.01.2024, the petitioners filed their second writ petition i.e., WP(C) No. 787/2024 which again on transfer to the Aizawl Bench has been renumbered as WP(C) No. 77/2024. This Court on 25.01.2024 while issuing notice of motion declined to pass any interim order but however observed that the work which was issued to the respondent No. 8 shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Since the respondent No. 7 despite being L1 was not issued the LOA, the respondent No. 7 has failed to appear despite notice in WP(C) No. 76/2024 and consequently was struck off from the arrayed respondents vide order dated 09.04.2024 on the prayer of the counsel for the petitioners.” 3. This Court upon hearing the parties dismissed both the writ petition vide Judgment & Order dated 22.08.2024. 4. Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel by referring to the grounds of review in the instant review petition submits that this Court had restrained itself from interfering with the tender process on the ground that the work/project involved had substantially progressed and eight (8) months had passed. Therefore, since the project was in the midst of execution which also involved national security and public interest therefore desisted itself from interfering with the tender process and dismissed the writ petitions. The learned counsel submits that however, it came to the knowledge of the review petitioners on 22.09.2024 that the Contractor concerned had not even started to execute the work in question despite the fact that eight (8) months had passed from the date of issuance of Letter of Award (LOA). The learned counsel submits that however, it came to the knowledge of the review petitioners on 22.09.2024 that the Contractor concerned had not even started to execute the work in question despite the fact that eight (8) months had passed from the date of issuance of Letter of Award (LOA). To fortify the said statements, a few photographs, which was taken on the project site have been annexed to the review petition. The learned counsel therefore submits that because of such error, the impugned Judgment & Order should be recalled. He otherwise submits that if the opposite party is able to show that work had substantially progressed as on the date of the Judgment & Order of this Court in the writ petitions, the review petitioners cannot have any say in the matter. However, he submits that it is clear that as no work has started, the finding and observation of this Court that the work has progressed being an erroneous finding, the Judgment & Order passed in the writ petitions should be recalled. 5. Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel also submits that since the review petition has been filed under Chapter X of the Gauhati High Court Rules, which does not prescribe any time limit for filing review, it cannot be said that there is delay in filing a review and therefore, there is no bar in entertaining the instant review petition. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the following case :- (1) Perry Kansagra Vs. Smriti Madan Kans Agra, (2019) 20 SCC 753 (2) Government of NCT of Delhi through its Secretary, Land and Building Department & Anr. Vs. K.L Rathi Steels Limited & Ors. (3) Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr. Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors. 6. Mr. A. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel on the other hand submits that the instant review petition is filed by invoking Section 114 of the CPC. In order to file a review under the said Section, a period of 30 days has been prescribed by Article 124 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act). Therefore, it is clear that the review petition having been filed on 19.02.2025 and the order sought to be reviewed having been passed on 22.08.2024, there is delay in filing the review petition and on this ground itself, the review petition should be dismissed. Therefore, it is clear that the review petition having been filed on 19.02.2025 and the order sought to be reviewed having been passed on 22.08.2024, there is delay in filing the review petition and on this ground itself, the review petition should be dismissed. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the review petitioners have made a wrong statement at paragraph No. 6 of the review petition wherein, it is stated that the review petition is filed within the period of limitation. The learned Senior Counsel submits that even if it is accepted that the review petition is not circumscribed by 30 days as per the Limitation Act, the review petitioners have failed to make any explanation in the review petition and for which reason, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his submission has relied upon the case of State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Subal Kumar Dey, 2011 (1) GLT 290 and the case of Umesh Chandra Lakhar Vs. Siba Ram Deka & Ors. 1990 (1) GLJ 518. 7. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that no statement or evidence can be found in the review petition which can be considered to constitute discovery of new and important evidence or matter which after exercising due diligence was not in the knowledge of the person seeking review. The petition has only made a veiled attempt to raise dispute about the quantum of progress in the execution of the concerned contract work which otherwise is a complete separate issue and not connected to the issue raised by the review petitioners in the review petition. That the same in no manner constitutes discovery of new and important evidence or matter which after exercising due diligence was not in the knowledge of the person seeking review. The learned Senior Counsel submits that a review petition is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is recalled and corrected. He also submits that it is for the principal client who assigned the contract to inspect and verify the progress of the contract work concerned through appropriate means and to take necessary steps in terms of the contract agreement, if so required. He also submits that it is for the principal client who assigned the contract to inspect and verify the progress of the contract work concerned through appropriate means and to take necessary steps in terms of the contract agreement, if so required. It is by no means in the domain of the review petitioner to get the progress of the contract work measured and verified by their own staff members in any illegal an unauthorized manner. The learned Senior Counsel thus submits that the review petition is not maintainable both on delay and even on merits and the same should be dismissed. 8. I have heard the submissions made by the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on records. As per Article 124, it is provided that the period of limitation for filing a review of judgment by a court other than the Supreme Court is 30 days and the period from which time begins to runs is from the date of decree or order. In this connection, it may be gainful to refer to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on 08.02.2021 in Civil Application (CAO) No. 21/2021 in Misc. Civil Application No. 5757/2020 Arising Out of WP (C) No. 7009/2019 (Laxmikant Sambhaji Khade Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) wherein, the applicability of Article 124 of the Limitation Act to the judgment delivered by the High Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was considered. The Bombay High Court in the given facts and circumstances of that case held that Article 124 of the Limitation Act would not apply to an application for review of an order of the judgment passed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it was clarified that the High Court may not ordinarily entertain an application for review if such an application is made after a lapse of a period of 30 days on the ground of public policy not to entertain such application beyond the period of 30 days after passing of the order. However, it was clarified that the High Court may not ordinarily entertain an application for review if such an application is made after a lapse of a period of 30 days on the ground of public policy not to entertain such application beyond the period of 30 days after passing of the order. It would however be open to the High Court to entertain in a given case, the application for review even if such application is filed beyond the period of 30 days, provided the High Court is satisfied that the application has sufficient cause for not being able to apply for review earlier. The delay in filing a review can be explained in an application for the review itself and separate application may not be necessary. 9. By applying the same principle in the present case, it may be seen that the review petitioners ought to have made some explanation as to why the review petition was not filed within a period of 30 days since it was admittedly filed beyond a period of 30 days. In fact, the petitioner at paragraph No. 6 of the review petition has categorically stated that the review petition has been filed within the period of limitation. The same would therefore go to show that the petitioner also agrees that there is a prescribed period of limitation for filing a review petition. Therefore, without there being any explanation as to why the review petition could not be filed within a period of 30 days, the review petition is only liable to be dismissed. 10. The review petitioners has taken the ground that despite the fact that no work had progressed at the time of passing of the Judgment & Order in the writ petitions, Court had declined to interfere with the tender process by dismissing the writ petitions, on the premise that work had progressed and that there was involvement of national security and public interest. The review petitioners contend that it came to their knowledge on 22.09.2024 that work did not progress despite the issuance of LOA eight (8) months earlier. The ground situation prevailing at the place of execution has been sought to be projected by enclosing few photographs of the project site where the work in question is to be executed in the project site. The ground situation prevailing at the place of execution has been sought to be projected by enclosing few photographs of the project site where the work in question is to be executed in the project site. According to the review petitioners, since work had not started and the review petitioners having been rejected on the premise that work had already started,the same are good grounds for seeking review of the judgment & order. It may however be seen that much water has flown since 22.09.2024 and that it is also admitted at the bar today that work has progressed. The only contention raised now is as to whether the contractor had completed the volume of work required to be executed as per the contract agreement as on the date of judgment and order in the writ petitions. The same in the considered view of this Court cannot be a ground for review particularly when the same was not even the case of the review petitioners in the writ petitions. 11. The Apex Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India &Another (supra) held that Section 114 of the CPC empowers a court to review its order if the conditions precedent laid down therein are satisfied and that the substantive provision of law does not prescribe any limitation on the power of the court except those which are expressly provided in Section 114 CPC. In the present case, as already noticed herein above, the condition precedent as laid down in Section 114 apparently has not been satisfied and therefore, the authority relied upon does not help the petitioners. The Apex Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi &Anr. (surpa) in the given facts of that case held that the words ‘any other sufficient reason’ cannot be construed expansively and in fact, the same would mean grounds which are atleast analogous to the two other pre-requisites for exercising review i.e., (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the petitioners will have to restrict their grounds to those which are similar to the pre-requisites. However, considering the grounds projected, the same in the considered view of this Court does not qualify as a ground for review. Therefore, the petitioners will have to restrict their grounds to those which are similar to the pre-requisites. However, considering the grounds projected, the same in the considered view of this Court does not qualify as a ground for review. The Apex Court in Perry Kansagra (supra) importantly held that power of review may not be exercised on the ground that he decision was erroneous on merits. It may be noticed that this Court while dismissing the writ petitions had also made a clear finding on the merit as well and for that reason, the instant review petition has to fail. 12. This Court in Umesh Chandra Lahkar (supra) in the given facts and circumstances of that case held that a party is not entitled to seek review of a judgment delivered by the court merely for the purpose of re-hearing and a fresh decision of the case particularly on points not urged earlier in the petition at the time of hearing. The scope of review as explained in Section 114 of the CPC is that a review can be invoked if the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record leading to the failure of justice or discovery of new important matter or evidence which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced at the time when the order was made or the order has been passed on account of some mistake and for any other sufficient reason. 13. In the present case, none of the above factors are found to be attracted. Therefore, upon due consideration, this Court finds no ground to review the Judgment & Order and accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed.