UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

PROJECT REPORT
{Code of Civil Procedure II}

TOPIC: REVIEW (SECTION 114 AND ORDER 47)

SUBMITTED TO- SUBMITTED BY-

DR. SITAL SHARMA TISHA
TEACHER INCHARGE SECTION F
UILS, PANJAB Roll no.331/21
UNIVERSITY, CHD 8th SEMESTER

1|P ag e
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the outset, I wish to thank the almighty God for his immense blessings and pray to him to
continue to guide me on the path of my committed calling. I deem it my proud privilege to
express my indebtedness and sincere thanks to all those who have in various ways, helped me in
the successful completion of the project and without their invaluable help this project would not
have been a reality.
I convey my sincere gratitude to my teacher Dr. Sital Sharma (Teacher Incharge), University
Institute of Legal Studies, Chandigarh who has chosen me for this project and also provided
me knowledge, inspiration and information for the timely completion of this endeavour. It would
not have been possible for me to complete this project without her encouragement, guidance,
valuable suggestions and affectionate help.
I owe my regards to the entire faculty of the University Institute of Legal Studies, from where I
have learnt the basics of law and whose informal discussions, intellectual support helped me in
the entire duration of this work.

Tisha
Roll no. 331/21
Section F
8th Semester

2|P ag e
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR.NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. MEANING 5
NATURE AND SCOPE OF REVIEW

3. OBJECT 6-7
WHO MAY APPLY
WHEN REVIEW LIES

4. GROUNDS FOR REVIEW OF JUDGMENT 8-9

5. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW APPLICATION 9-10

6. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REVIEW AND REVISION 11-14

7. CONCLUSION 15

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY 15

3|P ag e
 INTRODUCTION

In order to understand the concepts such as review and revision as per the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) a party who is offended by the decision of the court can reach out to the
High court by way of appeal against the decision given by the Trial Court/lower Court. In case of
Appeal, entire Judgment is scrutinized and heard again by the higher authority. But in the cases
where there are prima facie error on technical and procedural ground, the parties are not required
to file a fresh case and appeal. Also every human Being commits some mistakes and Judges are
also human being So Basically the provisions of reference, review and revision are given in order
to maintain the fairness and accuracy of the justice system that’s why in such cases, CPC has the
provision relating to Review and Revision under Section 114 and 115 of the Code. 1

Basically, in every legal system, the pursuit of justice involves mechanisms to correct errors,
reassess decisions, and ensure procedural propriety. These mechanisms are vital for upholding
public confidence in the judiciary and safeguarding the rule of law that’s why The Indian legal
system provides three key remedies: appeal, review, and revision. Each serves a distinct purpose
and operates within specific legal frameworks under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

Section 114 of the Code gives a substantive right of review in certain circumstances and Order
47 provides the procedure therefor. The provision relating to review constitutes an exception to
the general rule that once the judgment is signed and pronounced by the court it becomes functus
officio (ceases to have control over the matter) and has no jurisdiction to alter it.2 And Section
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers a High Court to entertain a revision in any case
decided by any subordinate court in certain circumstances. This jurisdiction is known as
revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

1
The Code of Civil Procedure,1908
2
Or.XX R.3.

4|P ag e
 REVIEW

MEANING :- Stated simply, review means to reconsider, to look again or to re-examine.3 In

legal parlance, it is a judicial re-examination of the case by the same court and by the same
judge. In review, a judge, who has disposed of the matter reviews an earlier order passed by him
in certain circumstances. According to the WEBSTER’S SEVENTH NEW COLLEGIATE
DICTIONARY the word ‘review’ means renewed study of material previously studied. This
remedy of review is very limited in scope and it can be availed only in respect errors apparent on
the face of the record.
Section 114 and Order XLVII, Rules 1 to 9 govern the process of review and this power of
review has been held to be a creature of statute. No court, quasi judicial body or administrative
authority, can review its judgment or order or decision unless it is legally empowered to so. A
review petition was held to be maintainable where a special leave petition was dismissed as
withdrawn.

NATURE AND SCOPE :- The normal principle of law is that once a judgment is pronounced
or order is made, the court becomes functus officio. Such judgment or order is final and it cannot
be altered or changed. 4 As a general rule, once an order has been passed by a court, a review of
such order must be subject to the rules of the game and cannot be lightly entertained. A Review
of judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is called for only where a glaring omission,
patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial Fallibility and it should not be
confused with appellate powers which enable an appellate court to correct all errors committed
by the subordinate court.
And this right of review is both, substantive as well as procedural. As a substantive right, it has
to be conferred by law, either expressly or by necessary implication. There can be no inherent
right of review. As a procedural provision, every court or tribunal can correct an inadvertent
error which has crept in the order either due to procedural defect or mathematical or clerical error
or by misrepresentation or fraud of a party to the proceeding, which can be corrected ex debito
justitae (to prevent the abuse of process of court).

3
Chamber’s 21st Century Dictionary (1997) at p.1197
4
Order 20 Rule 3

5|P ag e
OBJECT :- The remedy of review, which is reconsideration of the judgment by the same court
and by the same judge, has been borrowed from the courts of equity. This concept was not
5
known to the common law and has a remarkable resemblance to a writ of error. The Basic
philosophy inherent in the recognition of the doctrine of review is acceptance of human
fallibility. If there is an error due to human failing, it cannot be permitted to perpetuate and to
defeat justice. Such mistakes or errors must be corrected to prevent miscarriage of justice.

WHO MAY APPLY? According to Section 114 A person aggrieved by a decree or order may
apply for review of a judgment as the bare wording of this provision says “Subject as aforesaid,
any person Considering himself aggrieved 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.” which also restricts the power of the court to review suo motu as in R.S. NAYAK VS. A.R.
ANTULAY6 J. Mukherjee observed that the Supreme Court may exercise power of review suo
mottu in an appropriate case.
The expression “person aggrieved” denotes an elastic and to some extent, an illusive concept. It
cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Generally
speaking, a person aggrieved has been understood to mean one who has a genuine grievance
because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interests. A person who is neither
a party to the proceedings nor a decree or order binds him, cannot apply for a review as the
decree or order does not adversely or prejudicially affect him. 7 But if third party is affected or
prejudiced by a judgment or order, he can seek review of such order.

WEN REVIEW LIES? According to this section8 a Review petition is maintainable in the
following cases:-
1.Cases in which appeal lies but not preferred:- A review petition is also maintainable in cases
where appeal is provided but no such appeal is preferred by the aggrieved party. 9The Fact that an
order is subject to appeal is no ground to reject an application for review. An application for
review can be presented as long as no appeal is preferred against the order. Where, however, an

5
Sow Chandra Kante V. Sk. Habib, (1975) 1SCC 674
6
(1984) 2 SCC 183.
7
Bharat Singh V. Firm Sheo Pershad Giani Ram, AIR 1978 Del 122
8
Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
9
Rule 1(1)(a)

6|P ag e
appeal is already instituted before making an application for review, the court cannot entertain
such application. But if an application for review is preferred first and then an appeal is filed, the
jurisdiction of the court to deal with and decide the review petition is not affected. In RAM
BAKSH VS. RAJESHWARI KUNWAR10 The court observed that the words “from which an
appeal is allowed” should be construed liberally keeping in mind the underlying object of the
provision that before making a review application, no superior court has been moved for getting
the selfsame relief, so that for one and the same relief two parallel proceedings before two
forums are not taken.

2.Cases in which no appeal lies:- A Decree or order from which no appeal lies is open to review.
Hence an application for review against a decree passed by a Court of Small Causes is
competent. On the Same principles, where an appeal is dismissed on the ground that it was
incompetent or was time barred, the provisions of review would get attracted.

3.Decisions on reference from Court of Small Causes:- The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
allows a review of judgment on a reference from a Court of Small Causes.

REVIEW AND AMENDMENT OF DECREE :-

(a) In case of review, the correctness of judgment and decree is questioned, while in amendment
of the decree, the correctness of judgment is not questioned, but it is averred that the decree is
not in consonance with the judgment (section33)
(b) Where an application for amendment of decree is allowed, there is no need to hear the suit
afresh, but where review is allowed, the suit will be reheard on merits.
(c) Where an application for review is granted, it would supersede the judgment or decree, but in
amendment of decree, the decree will be amended as per the judgment of the court.

Talking about Order 47 which is all about Review its Rule 1 gives that the application for
review of a judgment may be made on any of the grounds mentioned in that rule.

10
AIR 1948 All 213.

7|P ag e
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW OF JUDGMENT :-

1.Discovery of new evidence - A review is permissible on the ground of discovery by the

applicant of some new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence,
was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was
passed. As a general rule, where a litigant has obtained a judgment in a court of justice, he is by
law entitled not to be deprived of the fruits thereof without very strong reasons. Therefore, where
a review of judgment is sought by a party on the ground of discovery of fresh evidence, utmost
care ought to be exercised by the court in granting it.11
Basically the underlying object of this provision is neither to enable the court to write a second
judgment nor to give a second innings to the party who has lost the case because of his
negligence or indifference. Therefore, a party seeking review must show that there was no remiss
on his part in adducing all possible evidence at the trial. But where it is doubtful whether the
evidence, even if produced, would have had any effect on the judgment, review cannot be
granted.
But according to this rule12 before an application of review can be granted, the applicant must
establish that even after exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge
or could not be produced by him before the court at the time when the decree was granted.
In BOARD OF CONTROL OF CRICKET OF INDIA V. NETAJI CRICKET CLUB13
Court held that the words “sufficient reason” occurring in rule 1 is wide enough to include a
misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate and An application for review may
be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’.

2.Error apparent on the face of record - Another ground for review is a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record. What is an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be
defined precisely or exhaustively, and it should be determined judicially on the facts of each
case. Such error may be one of fact or of law. However, no error can be said to be an error
apparent on the face of the record if it is not self evident and requires an examination or

11
Nundo Lal Case, AIR 1918 Cal 618
12
Rule 1 Order 47
13
AIR 2005 SC 592

8|P ag e
argument to establish it. In other words, an error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the
record where one has to travel beyond the record to see if the judgment is correct or not.
In SATYANARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN VS. MALLIKARJUN TIRUMALA14An error
which has to be established by a long drawn out process of reasoning on points where there may
conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
Moreover, such an error must be germane or relevant to the dispute.
Further the Explanation to Rule 1 has been inserted by the Amendment Act of the 1976. It
clarifies the fact that the decision on 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 review of such judgment. 3. Other sufficient reason - This is the last
ground for review as per the rule 1 of order 47 But the expression “any other sufficient reason” is
not defined in the Code. However relying on the judgment of the Privy council and the Federal
Court the SC has held in SHRI RAM SAHU VS. VINOD KUMAR that the words “other
sufficient reason” must mean “a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those
specified in the rule.”

PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OF REVIEW APPLICATION :-

1.First stage – According to Rule 4(1) an application for review commences ordinarily with an
ex parte application by the aggrieved party. The court may reject it at once if there is no
sufficient ground or may issue rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why review
should not be granted and where the court is of opinion that the application for review should be
granted, it shall grant the same provided that no such application shall be granted without
previous notice to the opposite party, to enable him to appear and be heard in support of the
decree or order, a review of which is applied for and no such application shall be granted on the
ground of discovery of new matter or evidence which the applicant alleges was not within his
knowledge , or could not be adduced by him when the decree or order was passed or made,
without strict proof of such allegation.

14
AIR 1960 SC 137

9|P ag e
2.Second stage - The application for review shall then be heard by the same court and by the
same judge who passed the decree or made the order, unless he is no longer attached to the court,
or is precluded from hearing it by absence or other cause for a period of six months after the
application. 15 If the rule is discharged, the case ends and the application will be rejected. If, on
the other hand, the rule is made absolute, the application will be granted for rehearing of the
matter.16
Also where the application for review is heard by more than one judge and the court is equally
divided, the application shall be rejected and where there is a majority, the decision shall be
according to the opinion of the majority.

3.Third Stage - In the third stage, the matter will be reheard on merits by the court either at once
or at any time fixed by it. After rehearing the case, the court may either confirm the original
decree or vary it.17 The effect of allowing an application for review is to recall the decree already
passed. Any order made subsequently whether reversing, confirming or modifying the decree
originally passed will be a new decree superseding the original one.

REVIEW IN WRIT PETITIONS :- After the amendment in Section 141 of the Code and
insertion of Explanation to that Section it is clear that the provisions of Order 47 of the Code do
not apply to writ petitions filed in a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 18 In
SHIVDEO SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB19 it was observed that there is nothing in Article
226 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
commited by it.

It is further submitted that the following observations made in the case of NORTHERN INDIA
CATERES LTD. V. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI 20 lay down the correct principle of law on
the power of the review and, therefore, are worth quoting:

15
Rule 5 Order 47
16
Rule 4(2) Order 47
17
Rule 8
18
Explanation to Section 141
19
AIR 1963 SC 1909
20
(1980) 2 SCC 167

10 | P a g e
“The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from
that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character
make it necessary to do so… whatever the nature of the proceedings, it is beyond dispute that a
review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the
judgment delivered by the court will not be reconsidered except where a glaring omission or
patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REVIEW AND REVISION

Before differentiating between review and revision we should discuss first the meaning of
revision.
Meaning of Revision :- According to the dictionary meaning, it means to look again or
repeatedly at, to go through carefully and correct where necessary, to look over with a view to
improving or correcting. It basically means the action of revising, especially critical or careful
examination or perusal with a view to correcting or improving. 21
Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), judicial review is a crucial process that
allows a matter to be re-examined by the same judge and in the same court as the initial decision
or order. Order 47 of the code describes this substantive right and lays out the conditions and
steps for starting a review. The word 'review' informally refers to a re-thinking or re-
examination. The court may review its own ruling under Section 114 and make any necessary
corrections. Although this authority is substantive, it must be used in accordance with the
procedural guidelines outlined in Order 47. Conducting a review is a major undertaking that has
to be well thought through. The purpose of the review process, which is ingrained in the legal
system, is to correct and avoid injustices. A review application is a motion to the same court to
recall and reconsider its previous judgment, unlike an appeal or revision to a superior court.

21
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1990) Vol. II at p.1821

11 | P a g e
 BASIS REVIEW REVISION

Meaning The term “review” denotes the act of In Contrast, “revision” entails a
reconsideration, looking again, or re- more overarching concept where the
examining a legal case. Specifically, it High Court takes on the
involves a judicial re-evaluation responsibility of revisiting and
conducted by the same court and the potentially modifying judgments
same judge that initially rendered the issued by subordinate courts.
judgment.

Scope This process is primarily aimed at The Scope of revision is broader,

rectifying errors or addressing extending beyond the confines of
overlooked aspects of the case. the same court or judge, with the
High Court acting as the revising
authority.

Objective The primary objective of a review is to The Overarching goal of revision is

correct any errors made in an order that to address instances of illegality,
could impact the interests of a party irregularity, or impropriety within
involved. It is a mechanism for the same the proceedings of subordinate
court and judge to revisit their own courts. The High Court, in its
decision, ensuring fairness and accuracy revisional capacity, aims to examine
in the legal process. records related to “any order” and
correct any flaws or injustices
observed.

12 | P a g e
 Provisions The legal foundation for the process of Section 115 of the CPC is the
in CPC review is laid out in Section 114 of the statutory source for the revisional
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This jurisdiction of the High Court’s
section explicitly defines the parameters authority to revise judgments made
and circumstances under which a review by subordinate courts under specific
can be initiated. circumstance

Initiation Typically, a review is initiated by a party Unlike review, revision can be

and directly involved in a case, and the same initiated by the High Court itself
Authority court and judge handle the process. The (suo motto) or by an aggrieved
authority for review lies within the party. The High Court serves as the
confines of the court that issued the revising authority, providing a
original judgment. higher judicial forum for the
reevaluation of cases.

Time Frame There is no specified limitation period Section 115 establishes a limitation
for mentioned for filing a review application period of 90 days for filing a
Application in Section 114 of the CPC. However, it is revision application from the date of
generally expected that the application is the judgment or decree in question.
made within a reasonable time from the
pronouncement of the judgment.

Nature of The grounds for review include the The High Court exercises revisional
Errors discovery of new and important matter or jurisdiction mainly on matters of
Addressed evidence, apparent mistakes or errors on jurisdiction. It intervenes when there
the face of the record, and other are instances of illegality,

13 | P a g e
 sufficient reasons. Review primarily irregularity, or impropriety in the
focuses on correcting errors within the proceedings of subordinate courts.
original court’s judgment.

Court The review process is an internal affair In the case of revision, the
Involvement of the same court that rendered the involvement of the High Court
judgement. The same judge who passed introduces an external and superior
the original decree is involved in the re- judicial authority into the process.
examination. The High Court, being the revising
body, brings a fresh perspective to
the case.

Landmark PERRY KANSAGRA V. SMRITI INSPECTOR GENERAL OF

Case MADAN KANSAGRA22 REGISTRATION V. K.
The H’onble Court observed that Review BASKARAN23
court does not sit in appeal over its own The essence of revisional
order. It constitutes an exception to the jurisdiction lies in the duty of the
general rule that once the judgment is superior tribunal or officer to ensure
signed it should not be altered. Power of that the subordinate tribunal or
review can be exercised for correction of officers remain within the bounds
mistake and not to substitute a view. prescribed by law and discharge
their functions in accordance with
law.

22
(2019) 20 SCC 753
23
(2020) 14 SCC 345

14 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

In summary, Revision and Review under the CPC serve different purposes and are governed by
different provisions. Revision allows a higher court to correct jurisdictional errors or
irregularities in subordinate court decisions, while Review allows a court to correct errors
apparent on the face of the record of its own decision. Understanding these distinctions is crucial
for parties seeking to challenge judicial orders or judgments under the CPC, ensuring they
choose the appropriate legal recourse based on the circumstances of their case. Application for
review and revision do not deal with facts or evidence of the case they are only based on
technical grounds. Every human being commits a mistake. Judges are also human beings so there
are chances for them to commit mistake. In such cases these provisions well help the judges in
order to correct the mistakes. So Sec 113,114,115 of CPC embedded in the legal system in order
to maintain the fairness and accuracy of the justice system.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES:-
 Mulla, The Code of Civil Procedure , Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 19th edn., 2017
Takwani, C.K., Civil Procedure, 2017, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 8th edn., 2017
 Singh, Avtar , Code of Civil Procedure, Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 4th edn.,
2015
 Mathur, D.N, The Code of Civil Procedure, Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 4th
edn., 2017

SECONDARY SOURCES:-
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/reference-review-revision/
 https://lawbhoomi.com/difference-between-review-and-revision
 https://www.mcolegals.in/kb/An-Analysis-of-powers-of-Review-and-Revision-vested-in-
Courts-under-Code-of-Civil-Procedure-1908.pdf

15 | P a g e