Review under Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Review literally and judicially means re-inspection, re-evaluation or re-consideration of its own decision by the very same Court. According to Black Law’s Dictionary, a review is “to re-examine judicially. A re-consideration; second view of examination; revision; consideration for purposes of correction”. If any person thinks that he is deprived of his rights by the way of Court’s decision, he can opt for review of the order/judgment in the same court. Rule 1 of Order 47 of the CPC states that any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order, etc. may apply for a review of judgment. The aggrieved person is one who has suffered a legal grievance, i.e., against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully affected his title or wrongfully deprived him of something which he was entitled to. A legal representative may apply for a review. The court cannot review suo motu nor can a superior court direct an inferior court to review its previous decision.

It is a discretionary right and not a statutory right. The main object of which is to enable the courts to correct errors, in the decisions pronounced by them. If the decree or an order made on the basis of some record and there has been some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or some new and important matter or evidence is discovered after the passage of decree or order or another such sufficient reasons, the application of review, may be made by the aggrieved party. As per the maxim functus officio, once a judgment is pronounced by a Court it cannot be altered by the same Court. Review is an exception to this, under which same judgment is reviewed under the same judge in the same Court. The power of review must be used in a restricted or infrequent manner; otherwise it would kill a lot of Court’s precious time. The equity principle of Writ of error is the source of Review wherein an error caused was allowed to be rectified as it was believed that an error caused due to human failing cannot be allowed to defeat justice.

The provision of review is stated in Section 114 & Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

According to section 114 of CPC, any person aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but not filed, or a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, can file a review petition in the same court which passed such decree or order on the following grounds:

• Where a decree or order is passed which is appealable under the CPC and no appeal is preferred;
• Where a decree or order is passed which is not appealable under the CPC; and
• Where a decision is given on a reference from a Small Causes Court.

There is no provision of reviewing an order already reviewed, unlike an appeal where there is a provision of second appeal. As per Rule 5 only those judges who heard the application initially shall have the power to hear it again except where they shall be absent for a period of six months or more after the date of application.

An application for review can be processed under these authorities:

(i) Review application against decree or order of High Court: - When decree or order, against which reviewed is prayed, is that of High Court, review application should be filed before any judge of High Court.

(ii) Some judge or his successor: - When the decree or order is that of court, other than High Court, it shall be reviewed by same judge or his successor, if the review application is filed by aggrieved person on the following grounds.

The legal propositions set out by the Apex Court in Gujarat University vs. Sonal P. Shah,[1] are as follows:-

1.    The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in Order 47 are not applicable to the High Court’s power of review in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2.    The said powers are to be exercised by the High Court only to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors. (The epithet ‘palpable’ means that which can be felt by a simple touch of the order and not which could be dugout after a long drawn out process of argumentation and ratiocination).

3.    The inherent powers, though ex facie plenary, are not to be treated as unlimited or unabridged, but they are to be invoked on the grounds analogous to the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1; namely:

(i)     discovery of new evidence, 

(ii)   existence of some mistake/error, 

(iii) analogous ground.

These are the very three grounds referred to in Order 47, Rule 1 CPC and by declaration of law at the hands of the Supreme Court in the above case they are the hedges or limitations of the High Court’s power.

Article 137 of the Indian Constitution gives power to the Supreme Court to review its own judgment subject to the provisions of any law made by parliament or the rules made under clause (c) of Article 145 of the Constitution. The Code of Civil procedure cannot curtail the power of Supreme Court of India.

Further, Order 47 states that the aggrieved/ deceased person also have to prove the following points for his petition to accept:-

a)    New evidence has been discovered and it was not within his knowledge even after exercising due diligence or he could not produce the same before the court at the time the decree was passed. This allegation must be specifically proved.

b)    Where there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

c)    Where there is some other sufficient reason to allow for review.

Grounds of review

• Discovery of new evidence: - When something new is discovered which was not filed by the deceased person at the time of decree or was not within the knowledge of the deceases person at the time of decree, then a review petition can be filed.
• Mistake or error :- When any mistake or error can be seen which is apparent on record and didn’t require any extra evidence to establish it, then review petition can be filed.
• No right to Appeal:- When no right to appeal is allowed as per the decree of the order, then the deceased can file for a review petition.
• Appealable Decree:- When appeal is allowed for the decree against the deceased person and he did not appeal, then review petition can be filed.
• Any other ground:- Party may file review petition, if the Court agrees to it that it has sufficient ground to file.

The Application of review can be rejected as well. It can be rejected where the Court feels that there is no sufficient reason to review or where an application for review is heard by more than one judge, and the court is equally divided. It shall be noted that there is no right of appeal to review. To elaborate, no appeal lies, from on order rejecting an application for review. Such an order is not a judgment and thus there cannot be a letters patent appeal.

Where the application of review is rejected because of non-appearance of the aggrieved party, then it can be restored if the aggrieved party gives reasonable and sufficient reason for non-appearance. Further, the opposite parties have to notify about the restoration of the application. There can be no further review of any order passed on the review.

The application for review provides period of 90 days from date of the decree or order except in certain exceptions.

Conclusion

Review Petition provide the judiciary to sort out any erroneous decision they had made. It lowers the burden of the Superior Court as well. Review Petition is fully on the discretion of the judges, however, the decisions have to be lawful.

[1] AIR 1982 Guj 58