Review under CPC
Review under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908
1. What is a Review?
A Review is a process by which a court re-examines its own judgment or order to correct any apparent error. It is an extraordinary remedy available to ensure justice and prevent miscarriage due to mistakes in the original decision.
2. Legal Provision for Review:
Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC deals with review petitions.
The court has the power to review its judgment or order if there is:
Error apparent on the face of the record,
Discovery of new and important evidence which was not within the party's knowledge or could not be produced earlier,
Or for any other sufficient reason.
3. Scope and Nature of Review:
Limited Jurisdiction: Review is not an appeal; it cannot be used to re-argue the case or re-assess evidence.
The court examines only if there is a palpable error or mistake.
Review is an exceptional remedy to prevent injustice.
Courts do not entertain review petitions to re-open settled issues or challenge findings based on appreciation of evidence.
4. Grounds for Review:
The Supreme Court in Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (2012) and other cases clarified that review petitions can be filed only on the following grounds:
Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:
The error must be obvious and not requiring detailed reasoning to establish.
Discovery of New and Important Evidence:
The evidence must be material and could not have been produced with reasonable diligence at the original hearing.
Any Other Sufficient Reason:
This is a residual ground and is interpreted narrowly.
5. Procedure for Filing a Review Petition:
A review petition must be filed within 30 days from the date of the decree or order (as per Order 47 Rule 1 CPC).
It is filed before the same court that passed the original judgment or order.
Grounds of review must be clearly stated in the petition.
The court may either admit or dismiss the petition summarily.
On admission, a fresh hearing may be conducted.
6. Key Case Law on Review:
K.K. Verma v. Union of India (AIR 1955 SC 549):
Held that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent errors and not for reappraising evidence or reconsidering the case.
Daryao & Others v. State of U.P. (AIR 1961 SC 1457):
Clarified that an error must be self-evident and not requiring elaborate arguments.
Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012):
Emphasized the strict limitation of review jurisdiction and rejected review petitions that amounted to appeals.
Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2002):
Held that discovery of new evidence is a valid ground only if the evidence was not in existence at the time of the original hearing.
7. Distinction between Review, Appeal, and Revision:
| Feature | Review | Appeal | Revision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Correct apparent error in same judgment | Re-examination of issues of fact and law | Supervision over subordinate courts |
| Court | Same court that passed the order | Higher court | Higher court |
| Grounds | Error apparent on face of record, new evidence | Errors of fact or law | Jurisdictional or procedural errors |
| Scope | Limited, no re-hearing of entire case | Wide scope, re-evaluation of facts and law | Limited to jurisdictional and procedural errors |
8. Illustrative Example:
Suppose a court passes a decree wrongly calculating the amount due by a party, or inadvertently names the wrong defendant, such an obvious mistake can be corrected through a review petition.
Summary:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Legal Basis | Section 114 & Order 47 Rule 1 CPC |
| Purpose | To correct apparent errors or mistakes in judgment |
| Grounds for Review | 1. Error apparent on record 2. New evidence 3. Other sufficient reasons |
| Time Limit | 30 days from the judgment/order |
| Court | Same court that passed the judgment |
| Review vs Appeal | Review = limited; Appeal = re-examination |
| Key Cases | K.K. Verma, Daryao, Sahara India Real Estate, Sandur Manganese |
RELATED Blog
0 comments