JIMS ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

TECHNICAL CAMPUS SCHOOL OF LAW

Assignment
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

Topic: State the circumstances under which a Review is maintainable.

Explain the same with the help of case laws.

SUBMITTED TO

MR RAHUL ARORA

SUBMITTED BY- UTKARSH SINGH LODHI

BBALLB SEC-A (2017-2022)

FIFTH SEMESTER

Enrolment No. 36025503517

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I do hereby acknowledge that all the information contained in this project is true to my
knowledge and understanding. Any material written by another person that has been used in
this project has been thoroughly acknowledged.

I thank the esteemed Director of the Institution, Dr. R.K. Raghuwanshi for inculcating the
concept of preparing a project report and allowing me to present my view points in a liberal
manner. In addition to this, I would like to show my heart-felt gratitude to RAHUL ARORA
sir who undertook the role of a supervisor, mentor and guide for the successful preparation
of this project report.
 INTRODUCTION

Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or re-consideration of its own
decision by the very same court. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance
of human fallibility. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the
doctrine ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’ which means an act of the court shall prejudice no
man. The other maxim is, ‘lex non cogit ad impossibillia’ which means the law does not
compel a man to do that what he cannot possibly perform.

“Review”, in a very general understanding of a layman, as described by the oxford

dictionary, states – “A formal assessment of something with the intention to institute a
change if necessary”. The concept under the law actually goes in consonance with the stated
description, having in addition the conditions for applicability, specific grounds along with
other general rules.

Order XLVII in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) together with Section 114 of
the Act, provides the procedure for Review. Section 114 merely produces the conditions
necessary for the filing the application for Review to the ‘court’ by which decree or order,
sought to be reviewed under the application, was passed or made. While Order XLVII along
with the same conditions as enumerated in the section, lays down grounds for Review and
other procedural rules governing the same.

In order to understand the legal procedure, Two Primary Aspects of the concept need to be
borne in the mind, which are as follows –

1. “Same Court” – Rule 1 of the Order specifically provide that application for
Review of the decree or order has to be made to the very same court which passed
such decree or made such order.
2. “Court” – The term has not been defined in the CPC, but impliedly interpreted as
“Any Court having the jurisdiction to try the suits of a civil nature”[i], now such
civil jurisdiction may be such as conferred upon the courts by the CPC itself, or
upon the Tribunals by the special statues, or upon the Supreme Court and High
Courts under their civil appellate jurisdiction[ii], by the Constitution of India.
REVIEW JURISDICTION FOR THE SUPREME COURT
The Apex Court, therefore also falls within the meaning of the term “Court” while hearing
any suit of a civil nature. It however has been separately empowered with the review
jurisdiction under Article 137 of the Constitution, but for the cases other than that of civil
and criminal, since for such cases, it is being governed by the CPC and Criminal Procedure
Code only.

Review Jurisdiction for the High Courts – Apart from the power conferred upon it as
a “Civil Court” under the CPC, it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Shivdeo
Singh v. State of Punjab:

“It is sufficient to say that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude
a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary
jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors
committed by it.”
 CONDITIONS FOR APPLICABILITY

An application for Review may be filed by any person, if such person perceive himself as
aggrieved by Order XLVII, Rule 1, The Code of Civil Procedure 1908.–

1. “A decree or order which has been passed or made, by any civil court, And
2. from such decree or order, an appeal is allowed,
3. But no appeal has been filed yet, at the time of filing of the Review
application”,

However once, the review application is filed thereafter, there is no legal bar on filing of an
appeal from such decree or order. If appeal is so preferred and decided by the speaking order
i.e. on merits, before the Review application, then the Review application cannot be
continued with Hari Singh V. S Seth AIR 1996. And vice versa i.e. where review application
is heard and decided before the appeal then appeal becomes liable to be dismissed. So, where
both are pending, whichever is decided first, will be said to have superseded the original
decree or order, operationally therefore, such original decree or order no longer stands and
hence the other pending proceeding will be estopped.

Although, if appeal or even Special Leave Petition (SLP) is preferred, whether before the
institution of Review or after it, but is not heard and gets dismissed for the reason being
legally incompetent or due to the “application of Law of Limitation” Tungabhadra
Industries ltd. V. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1964 S.C. 1372, such dismissal does not
create any legal obstruction for the filing of Review or proceeding thereof, if the decision is
otherwise competent to get reviewed on the grounds provided in the Order Indian Oil Corpn.
Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 146 and Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6
SCC 359.

4.Or, “a decree or order has been passed or made, by any civil court And, from such
decree or order, no appeal is allowed”,

This point of application provides the opportunity to an aggrieved person, in presence of a

legal prohibition on filing of an appeal, to get his case reheard on any of the grounds as set
out in the Order.

Since this condition being Non-Appealable, is one which is condition precedent for the
Revision as well Section 115, The Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and so the confusion may
arise for a layman if he is aggrieved by a decree or order, that which of the recourse
available, should be opted. To consider the issue, it has to be understood that Review is
wider in scope than Revision, since Revision can be done only on the grounds of
jurisdictional or procedural error by the High Court, while, as already discussed that Review
can be done only by the same court and grounds for Review, as explained below in this
article, are much wider than merely jurisdictional or procedural error.

In fact, it may technically be said that, if a decree or order, is eligible to get revised under the
“Revision” then it is mechanically eligible to get reviewed under the “Review” as well,
provided such decree or order is Non-Appeable, but so is not the other way round, due to the
very specific scope of Revision.

5.Or, “a decision on a reference from a court of a small cause”.

Where, reference has been made by a court of a small cause, to the High Court under Order
XLVI, the decision of the High Court, on such reference is binding, but person aggrieved by
such decision may apply for review of such decision. 

WHO CAN FILE A “REVIEW”

“Any person who consider himself aggrieved” is what the rule provides, and it being legally
clear in terms, on the face, gives the interpretation that person filing a review need not
necessarily be a party to the suit, rather may be one who simply derives a legitimate interest
in the suit or according to him, such interest has been adversely affected by the decision of
such suit. And therefore any such person would have locus standi to file a review.

Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & ors.
Review Petition (C) D. No. 40966 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No.7448 of 2011 , held:

“Even a third party to the proceedings, if he considers himself an aggrieved person, may
take recourse to the remedy of review petition. The quintessence is that the person
should be aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by this Court in some respect”
 GROUNDS FOR REVIEW:

Review can be filed, if there is Order XLVII, Rule 1, The Code of Civil Procedure 1908:

1. “Discovery of New and Important matter or evidence, which, after the exercise
of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review or
could not be produced by him at any time when the decree was passed or
order made”,

Discovery of any new matter or evidence necessarily has to be an important or relevant as

such to the extent that had it been brought on record at any time when the decree was passed
or order made, it would have an impact and might have altered the decision SIR DINSHAH
FARDUNJI MULLA, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, 1900 (15th ed. 2012).
Moreover, absence of such important matter or evidence on record at the time of decision,
must not be the result of negligent attitude of the concerned person and therefore such person
applying for Review is required by law to strictly prove that such matter or evidence was not
within his knowledge or could not be adduced, even after exercising due diligence and unless
such proof is given, application shall not be granted Order XLVII, Rule 4(2)(b), The Code of
Civil Procedure 1908.

Court may take subsequent events into consideration while reviewing a decision Board of
Control of cricket in India V. Netaji Cricket club, AIR 2005 SC 592, however the fact that
the question of law on which decision, sought be reviewed, is based has been reversed or
modified subsequently by the higher authority in any other case, would not make it a new
and important matter, to review the decision explanation, Rule 1, Order XLVII, The Code of
Civil Procedure 1908.

Illustration – “A sued B for a sum of money alleged to be due under an agreement and
obtained the decree for the same, against which B, subsequently filed an appeal in the Privy
Council, and while the appeal was pending, A obtained another decree against B on the
strength of the former decree, for another sum of money alleged by him to have become due
under the same agreement and later Privy Council reversed the former decree in the appeal,
on the basis of which B applied to the court which had passed the second decree, for the
Review on the ground of the decision of Privy Council and so was accepted and held by the
court to be a new and important matter” SIR DINSHAH FARDUNJI MULLA, THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, 2334 (14th ed, 1989).
 2.Or, “some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record”,

The mistake or error should be such, which is very obvious and visible itself on the face of it,
and therefore any error found out from the judgment after a long reasoning and law based
analysis, cannot be said to be one apparent on the face of record, as a ground for review.
However, such mistake or error can be of fact and as well as of law.

Illustrations – “Non-consideration of the very obvious application of particular law, such as

law of limitation or particular provision to the facts of the case, setting aside of the ex
parte decree without being satisfied of the any of the conditions laid down in Order 9 Rule
13, application of religious law which has not been legally recognized, wrong interpretation
of a settled legal issue, where a commission was issued to examine a witness in a country
where no reciprocal arrangement exists, have been held to be an error apparent on the face of
record” SIR DINSHAH FARDUNJI MULLA, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, 2335-
2336 (14th ed, 1989).

3. Or, “any other sufficient reason”.

Before 1922, the application of the term “Sufficient reason” was unrestricted and
unregulated, finally in that year a principle came to be laid down by the Privy Council in the
case of Chhajju Ram V. Neki which can be summarized as that “the third ground
mentioned, is no doubt giving wide scope to the grounds for review, but at the same time that
“sufficient reason” has to be at least analogous (ejusdem generis) to either of the other two
grounds and the mere reason that decree was passed or order made on erroneous ground that
court failed to appreciate the important matter or evidence, would not make any good ground
for review, and therefore in such cases, the appeal and not review, is the remedy to get such
erroneous decree or order corrected” Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs Aribam Pishak Sharma
And Ors. (1979) 4 SCC 389.

Illustrations – Failure to adhere to legal provision which required the court to act in a
particular manner would fall within the meaning of “Sufficient Reason” as analogous to the
“Error Apparent on the Face of the Record” Hari Shankar V. Anant Nath, 1949 F.C.R 36.
Order of the dismissal of a suit due to default of the plaintiff, cannot be reviewed on the
ground of misapprehension of the counsel as sufficient reason, but if order was on its face
illegal then such order may be reviewed on the ground as error of the law apparent on the
face of the record.
 RESTRICTIONS

The order under its Rule 9 excludes two following kinds of application, from the
consideration –

1. “An order made on the application for a review”. grant or rejection of the
application, either case cannot be reviewed.
2. “Decree passed or order made on review”. where application is granted, case is
re-heard and the decree or order which is passed or made on merits of the case,
superseding the original one, cannot be further sought to be reviewed for the second
time.

CONCLUSION

“Where it appears to the court that no prescribed ground exists for the review then such
application shall be rejected” Order XLVII Rule 3, The Code of Civil Procedure 1908. “And
if it does, in the opinion of the court then same shall be granted, but only after the service of
notice upon the opposite party enabling thereby him to appear and present his case in favor
of the decree or order, sought to be reviewed” Order XLVII, Rule 4, The Code of Civil
Procedure 1908.

The order of rejection of application for review cannot be appealed, notwithstanding this
general rule, if so was rejected due to non-appearance of applicant, the application can be
restored by the court after being satisfied with the cause which prevented the applicant from
appearing, to be genuine and sufficient. “The grant of the application may be opposed once
by the way of appeal” Order XLVII, Rule 7, The Code of Civil Procedure 1908, however as
mentioned above such grant cannot be reviewed.

After analysing these general rules to the concept of Review and its nature, it can be
concluded that power to review a decision is very specifically a creation of the law and
therefore can in no terms be considered something as intrinsic on the jurisdiction of the court
SIR DINSHAH FARDUNJI MULLA, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, 1898. Hence it
is implied duty of the court to exercise this power with the great caution, only after being
satisfied as to existence of any of the grounds mentioned Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati &
Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 320 and should not use it as inherent power or as to entertain any such
application for which only remedy available under the law is an appeal.
 CASE LAWS
1) Hari Singh V. S Seth AIR 1996
2) Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359.
3) Union of India v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & ors. Review Petition (C) D.
No. 40966 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No.7448 of 2011
4) Board of Control of cricket in India V. Netaji Cricket club, AIR 2005 SC 592
5) Chhajju Ram V. Neki
6) Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs Aribam Pishak Sharma And Ors. (1979) 4 SCC 389.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 https://blog.ipleaders.in/review-and-its-grounds-under-cpc/#_edn11