Introduction
In any judicial system, the quest for justice cannot be complete without providing for correction of
errors. Even the most competent judges may occasionally overlook facts or commit legal errors.
Recognizing this, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, incorporates a provision for reviewing
judgments and orders, through Section 114 and Order XLVII.
A review is a statutory right and not an inherent power. It enables a court to revisit its own
judgment under specific circumstances, especially where an apparent error or previously unavailable
evidence is brought to light. This mechanism ensures that justice is not denied due to technicalities
or human fallibility.
The principles governing review are based on public policy – striking a balance between finality of
judgments and correction of manifest injustice. This report provides a comprehensive exploration of
the provisions, grounds, limitations, and judicial interpretations of the law relating to review.
🔹 Legal Provisions
📜 Section 114 – CPC (Substantive Provision)
Section 114 lays down the circumstances under which a review can be sought:
Clause (a): Where an appeal is allowed but not preferred – ensures that parties cannot
misuse review as a substitute for appeal.
Clause (b): Where no appeal is allowed – extends the review remedy where appellate
recourse is unavailable.
Clause (c): On a decision on reference from the Court of Small Causes – ensures justice in
summary cases.
This section simply confers the right to apply for a review. The procedural requirements, grounds,
and limitations are elaborated in Order XLVII.
📜 Order XLVII – Rule 1 to 9 (Procedural Framework)
Rule 1 defines grounds for review, such as new evidence, error apparent, or sufficient
reason.
Rule 2-4 describe the procedure to be followed for review applications.
Rule 5 allows for rejection of an application without oral arguments if the court finds it
meritless.
Rule 8 and Rule 9 govern the disposal of the review and further steps, including whether
appeals can lie from review decisions.
Together, Section 114 and Order XLVII constitute a complete code for the review of civil
judgments/orders.
🔹 Essentials of Review
To file a valid review petition, certain preconditions must be satisfied:
1. Application to Same Court: The review must be sought from the court that originally passed
the judgment or order. It cannot be filed in a superior or subordinate court.
2. Aggrieved Person: The applicant must be an "aggrieved person" — someone whose legal
rights have been adversely affected.
3. Non-Invocation of Appeal: If an appeal is permissible against the decree or order and the
party has already filed one, review is not maintainable. However, if no appeal has been
preferred, review may be entertained.
4. Strict Grounds: Grounds must fall within Rule 1 of Order XLVII:
o New evidence not previously accessible
o Error on the face of the record
o Any analogous "sufficient reason"
These essentials restrict the misuse of review petitions and preserve judicial time and finality.
🔹 Scope and Nature
The scope of review is exceptionally narrow and differs sharply from that of an appeal or revision:
It is not an opportunity to reargue the entire case.
Only those mistakes which are patent and self-evident can be reviewed.
The court cannot enter into a reappreciation of evidence or reinterpret legal positions
merely because another view is possible.
In essence, review is a self-correction mechanism, where courts acknowledge the possibility of error
and correct it within the procedural confines of the CPC.
🔹 Limitations
The right to review, while valuable, is not unrestricted. Its limitations are as follows:
1. Not a Second Chance: Review cannot be used to relitigate the same issues.
2. Filing of Appeal: If an appeal has been filed, even if withdrawn later, the right to review is
lost.
3. Time Limit: As per the Limitation Act, the review application must be filed within 30 days
from the date of the decree or order.
4. Error Must Be Obvious: The error should be evident on the face of the record — not
requiring elaborate arguments to establish.
5. No Review in the Supreme Court under CPC: The review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
lies under Article 137 of the Constitution, not Section 114.
These limitations uphold the sanctity and finality of judicial decisions, allowing for corrections only
in exceptional cases.
🔹 Case Laws (with Expanded Analysis)
📌 Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372
The court held that an error must be self-evident and not something that requires extensive
argument. A review is not a platform to press alternate legal interpretations.
📌 Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650
A landmark case where the court emphasized that review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise.
It further clarified that review is permissible only under strict and limited grounds.
📌 Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, AIR 1995 SC 455
The case reiterated that detailed analysis or reassessment is not within the review’s scope. The error
must be obvious without legal reasoning.
📌 Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320
The court ruled that mere repetition of old arguments does not amount to review. It must involve a
fresh ground permissible under Order XLVII.
These rulings shape the doctrinal foundation of the review jurisdiction in Indian civil law.
🔹 Difference between Review, Appeal, and Revision
Understanding the difference is essential to know what remedy to pursue:
Feature Review Appeal Revision
Same court that passed
Forum Higher appellate court High Court
the order
Limited – only apparent Full reconsideration on Supervisory – checks jurisdictional
Scope
errors facts/law errors
Strict (new evidence, Procedural/illegal exercise of
Grounds Broad (law & fact both)
error) jurisdiction
Filing
Within 30 days Generally 30-90 days Within 90 days (typically)
Limit
Nature Curative Corrective Supervisory
🔹 Procedure for Filing Review
The process is governed by Order XLVII Rules 1 to 9, and involves:
1. Drafting a review petition explaining the specific grounds.
2. Affidavit supporting the application (particularly if based on new evidence).
3. Submission in the original court, along with the original judgment/order.
4. The court may:
o Reject it summarily if no ground is made out.
o Issue notice to the opposite party if prima facie merit exists.
5. Hearing and disposal, which may or may not involve oral arguments.
Review is not a matter of right — admission itself depends on judicial satisfaction.
🔹 “Sufficient Reason” – Interpretation
This phrase is not defined in the CPC and is interpreted ejusdem generis – meaning similar to other
listed grounds (error or new evidence). Courts have held:
Sufficient reason should not be too broadly interpreted, else it defeats the purpose of
review.
It may include clerical mistakes, inadvertent omissions, or other rare procedural lapses.
Case Law:
📌 Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club, (2005) 4 SCC 741
The SC accepted “sufficient reason” as a flexible standard, allowing review in extraordinary
situations to uphold justice.
🔹 Recent Developments and Judicial Trends
In the modern era, with a heavy pendency of cases, courts have been cautious in entertaining
review petitions:
Judicial economy is prioritized to avoid multiple reviews or unnecessary hearings.
The Supreme Court Registry often dismisses review petitions without oral hearings, unless
there's a strong prima facie case.
Courts are more inclined to accept reviews in public interest matters, constitutional
interpretations, or gross miscarriages of justice.
🔹 Conclusion
The power of review under Section 114 and Order XLVII of the CPC plays a critical but limited role in
civil litigation. It provides a procedural route for courts to address evident errors or unforeseen facts,
thus preserving the fairness of the judicial process.
At the same time, the restrictive grounds, procedural safeguards, and judicial restraint ensure that
finality and certainty in litigation are respected. It is, therefore, a valuable tool in the balance
between judicial integrity and legal certainty.
🔹 Bibliography
1. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Bare Act)
2. Mulla, D.F. – The Code of Civil Procedure
3. Takwani, C.K. – Civil Procedure
4. AIR Supreme Court Digests
5. SCC Online Case Law Database
6. Relevant articles from Manupatra, LiveLaw, and Indian Kanoon
