REVIEW
SECTION 114 - CPC, ORDER 47
Meaning - It means the process under which a court in certain circumstances can
reconsider its own judgment. It is judicial re-examination of the case by the same court
and by the same judge.
Object - To prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable orders
committed by the court.
Section 114 of the Code gives a substantive right of review in certain circumstances
while Order 47 provide the procedure therefore.
The provision relating to review constitutes an exception to the general rule laid down in
O. 20, R. 3 which provides that once the judgment is signed and pronounced by the Court
it has no jurisdiction to alter it.
Who may apply for review (Rule 1) & Section 114 : Any person who is aggrieved may
apply for a review. Review lies from :-
i. by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but no appeal has been
preferred
ii. by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
iii. Judgment on reference from a court of small causes.
To whom a review shall lie: An application for review should be made to the very judge
who passed the decree or made the order. But if that judge is not available, it will be
heard by another judge or his successor in office.
Grounds for review (Rule 1): An application for review of a judgement may be made
on any of the following grounds :-
i. Discovery of new and important matter or evidence -
ii. Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record - It is to determined on the
facts of each case. Error may be one of fact or of law. For instance, passing a
judgment without considering the statutory provision.
iii. Any other sufficient reason - For instance, where the party was not given a fair
opportunity to produce evidence, where the court has failed to consider a material
issue etc.
Case Law :- Board of Control of Cricket of India v. Netaji Cricket Club
Held :- The words "sufficient reason" are wide enough to include misconception of law or fact
by a court or even an advocate.
Instances of review :- In following circumstances, review was granted :-
i. When the judgment is pronounced without notice to the parties;
ii. Mis-conception of law or fact by court;
iii. Failure to consider a particular section of an Act;
iv. On the ground of omission to try a material issue in a case.
Order 47 - Procedure
Application for review of judgment (R. 1) - stated above.
Rule 2 - Repealed.
Form of applications for review (R. 3) - The application for review should be in the
form of memorandum of appeal. However, the substance and not the form of an
application is decisive.
Application where rejected (R. 4) - If the court is of the opinion that there doesn't exist
a sufficient ground for review, it shall reject the application. But if it is of the opinion that
the application for review should be granted, it shall grant the same, provided that :-
i. No application for review shall be granted without previous notice to opposite
party to appear and oppose the application and
ii. No application for review shall be granted on the ground of discovery of new
matter or evidence which the applicant alleged was not within his knowledge, at
the time of passing of the decree without strict proof of such allegation.
Application for review in court consisting of two or more judges (R. 5) - The
application for review shall be heard by the same court and by the same judge who
passed the decree or 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.
Application where rejected (R. 6) - When an application for a review has been heard by
more than one judge and the court is equally divided, in such a case, it shall be rejected.
But if there is a majority, then the decision of the majority shall prevail.
Order of rejection not appealable (R. 7) - If the court rejects the application for review,
such an order is not appealable. But an order granting the review is appealable. However,
if the application had been rejected because of the non-appearance of the applicant, and
the court is satisfied that there existed sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the
application was called on for hearing, the court shall order restoration of such application.
Nevertheless, an order of restoration of review application shall not be made until notice
has been served on the other party.
Registry of application granted, and order for re-hearing (R. 8) - When an
application for review has been granted, a note of the same shall be made in the register
and the court may at once re-hear the case or make such an order in regard to the re-
hearing.
Bar of certain applications (R. 9) - Under this rule second application for review shall
not be entertained.
Other concepts vis-a-vis review
Limitation - According to Article 124 of Limitation Act, 1963 the period of limitation
for filing an application for review of judgment by a court other than the supreme court is
30 days from the date of decree or order.
Letters Patent Appeal - In Sattemma v. Visnu Murthy., it had been held that an order
refusing an application for review cannot be said to be a judgment and hence no LPA
lies. But an order granting review may amount to judgment and LPA is competent.
Suo Motu Review - The court is not empowered to exercise the power of review suo
motu.
Conclusion
The observations of Pathak. J. in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of
Delhi, correctly lay down the principle of law on the power of review. He stated that a review
proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case and therefore the finality of
the judgement delivered will not be reconsidered by the court except where there is a glaring
omission or patent mistake.
