Question: What do you mean by Review? Distinguish it from Revision. [JK.J.2001, UPCJ 2006, H.J.S. 1996] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [What do you mean by Review? Distinguish it from Revision.] Answer Provision of review has been made under Section 114 of the C.P.C., 1908, which is as follows:– Review (Section 114)… Read More »

Question: What do you mean by Review? Distinguish it from Revision. [JK.J.2001, UPCJ 2006, H.J.S. 1996] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [What do you mean by Review? Distinguish it from Revision.] Answer Provision of review has been made under Section 114 of the C.P.C., 1908, which is as follows:– Review (Section 114) — Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but...

Question: What do you mean by Review? Distinguish it from Revision. [JK.J.2001, UPCJ 2006, H.J.S. 1996]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [What do you mean by Review? Distinguish it from Revision.]

Answer

Provision of review has been made under Section 114 of the C.P.C., 1908, which is as follows:–

Review (Section 114) — Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved

  1. by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred.
  2. by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or
  3. by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, 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.

Word “review” means the process under which a court in certain circumstances can and owns judgment. Thus, it is a judicial re-examination of the case by the same judge. Generally, the court which rendered the earlier decision of disposed of the matter earlier should, if available, review its earlier decision in as much as court he is the best suited to remove any error apparent on the face of its own order.

Application for review of the judgment

It is settled law that every error whether or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 though it can be made the subject matter of appeal arising out actual of such order.

In this case, the review order was passed in conformity with the requirements of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code and, therefore, the High Court rightly concluded that the main order impugned in the review application did not contain any factual or/and legal error(s) within the meaning of Order XLVII of the Code so as to entitle the reviewing Court to recall the same in its review jurisdiction. Asharfi Devi (dead) through LRs v. State of UP and Ors, [AIR 2019 SC 832].

Maintainability of review petition

In this case, the special leave petition was dismissed in limine and without any speaking order. After the dismissal of the special leave petition, the respondent in this appeal had approached the High Court with a review petition. Said review petition is allowed bypassing order dated December 12, 2012, on the ground of suppression of material facts by the appellant herein and commission of fraud on the Court. Such a review petition was maintainable.

Therefore, the High Court was empowered to entertain the same on merits. Insofar as the appeal of the appellant challenging the order dated December 12, 2012, on merits is concerned, the matter shall be placed before the regular board to decide the same. Khoday Distilleries Ltd and Ors v. Sri Mahadeshwarasahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd, Kollegal, [(2019) 4 SCALE 113].

Non-appearance of the learned Counsel of the Union of India due to the call of the strike of the lawyers cannot be a ground for review of the order

In the present case, the learned counsel for the Union of India did not appear on account of the fact that there was a call of the strike by the lawyers. The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court held that this cannot be said to be justifiable ground for review of the order passed by the Court earlier.

The reason for this is that there does not appear to be an error apparent on the face of the record either on fact or law and there does not appear to be any mistake committed by the erroneous assumption of the fact which if allowed to stand, would cause the miscarriage of justice. Union of India, New Delhi and Ors v. Sailender Singh, [(2016) 2 JBCJ 18].

Review

Revision

Power

1. Every court is empowered to review the judgment.

2. The court can review only its own judgment/order.

 

1. Revisional power vested only with the High court.

2. Revision may be made only by the High court.

Appeal of High court

3. Review may be made in the matter in which appeal lies before the High court.

 

3. Revision made by the High court only in cases where no appeal lies before the High court.

Application

4. Aggrieved party is required to file an application for review.

 

4. The High court may do revision suo-moto or the High court may call for the record from the subordinate court for revision.

Basis

5. The matter may be reviewed in case of error or the advent of new evidence.

 

5. Revision may be allowed only in the matter which relates to jurisdiction.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – I of X
  2. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – II of X
  3. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – III of X
  4. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IV of X
  5. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – V of X
  6. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VI of X
  7. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VII of
  8. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VIII of X
  9. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IX of X
  10. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – X of X
Updated On 2022-02-24T08:23:21+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story