Scribd
Upload
76 views3 pages

Differences Between Reference, Review, and Revision

Uploaded by

KHYATI THACKER
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
76 views3 pages

Differences Between Reference, Review, and Revision

Uploaded by

KHYATI THACKER
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Distinctions

Reference and Review

[Link]. Reference Review

1. The case is referred to the High Court by the subordinate court and not by the party for
reference. For review, the application is made by the aggrieved party.

2. The matter of reference can be decided by the High Courts only. A review is done by the
court which has passed the decree or made the order.

3. Reference can be made only when the suit, appeal or execution proceeding is pending. A
review can be done only after the decree or order is passed.

4. Grounds of reference is different than a review. Grounds for review are different.

Reference and Revision

[Link]. Reference Revision

1. For reference, a case is transferred by a subordinate court to the High Court. For revision,
the application is made to the High Court either by the aggrieved party of by High Court suo moto.

2. The grounds for reference is when there is reasonable doubt on the question of law by the
subordinate court. The ground for revision is jurisdictional errors by the subordinate court.

Review and Revision

[Link]. Revision Review

1. Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only by the High Court. A review is done by the
court who has passed the order or decree itself.

2. Revisional power is exercised when no appeal lies to the High Court. Review of an order
or decree can be done even if an appeal lies to the High Court.

3. The High Court can exercise the revisional power even suo moto(by its own motion). For
review, an application is required to be filed by the aggrieved party.

4. The grounds for revision is mainly on jurisdiction errors. The grounds for revision are
different

5. The order granting the review is appealable. The order passed on exercising revisional
jurisdiction is not appealable.

Reference and Appeal

[Link] Reference Appeal

1. The power of reference is vested in the court. The right to appeal is the right which has
been conferred to the parties.

2. Reference can always be made to the High Court. An appeal can be made to any court
which superior and it does not need to be only High Court.

3. The grounds for reference are a substantial question of law and it is narrower. The
grounds of appeal are much wider than grounds for reference.
4. Reference can be made only when the suit, order or execution is pending. An appeal
can be filed only after the decree is passed or appealable order has been made by the subordinate
court.

Review and Appeal

[Link]. Review Appeal

1. A review can be made only to the same court. An appeal can be filed to any superior court.

2. The review is a procedure of reconsideration of the same matter by the same judge of the
same court. An appeal is the procedure of consideration of the matter by the different judge of
the superior court.

3. Grounds of review are narrower than the grounds for appeal. Grounds for appeal are
wider than the grounds of review.

4. There is no provision for the second review. In an appeal, the provision for the second
appeal lies when sufficient grounds are present.

Revision and Appeal

[Link]. Revision Appeal

1. An application for revision lies only to the High Court. An appeal can be made to any court
superior to the court passing the decree or order.

2. A revisional application can be made to the High Court for any decision made by the
subordinate court when no appeal lies for such decision. An appeal lies only from the decree
or order passed by the subordinate court.

3. Revisional power of the High Court is totally discretionary. The right to appeal has
been provided by the statue as a substantive right.

4. The grounds for revision is the jurisdictional error. An appeal lies on the question of
fact or question of law or, both.

5. For revision, filing an application is not necessary. The high court may exercise the revisional
power as suo moto. For an appeal a memorandum of appeal to be filed by the aggrieved party
before the superior court is a must.

Conclusion

The provisions for reference, review and revision provided under the Code of Civil Procedure are
different ways by which the court can work more efficiently for fairness of justice system even when
there is no provision of appeal.

Whenever a matter is decided is the Court and the judge passes a decree or order then there might
be circumstances where there has been any mistake or error, or a party is aggrieved by the order or
decree or, there can also be circumstances where the subordinate court is doubtful on such question
of law. And, a general rule once a judgement is pronounced it cannot be altered by the same court.
So the provision of review, reference and revision have been inserted under the legal system to
avoid a miscarriage of justice.

Where the reference is sought by the subordinate court itself when there is a doubt on the question
of law to the High Court, revisional power is exercised when there is a jurisdictional error by the
subordinate court. The power of review is vested in the subordinate court itself which has passed
the decree or order.

The process of Review, reference and revision are also very different from Appeal or Second appeal.
The subordinate court can seek reference from the High Court on its own but for review or revision,
an application is required to be filed. So, all three procedures have different grounds, conditions and
procedures.

Common questions

Powered by AI

Revisional power is discretionary and focused on jurisdictional errors, applicable when no appeal lies for a decision by the subordinate court. In contrast, appellate power is a substantive right allowing for consideration on questions of fact or law, based on a filed memorandum of appeal .

A second appeal is possible when there are sufficient grounds beyond the initial appeal, such as substantial questions of law, in contrast to reviews which are limited to reconsidering the same matter by the same court without provision for a second review .

Review grounds are narrower, focusing on correcting errors within the same court after a decree or order is passed, whereas revision addresses jurisdictional errors accessible exclusively by High Court action, impacting judicial outcomes by determining the level of court involvement and types of errors corrected .

Jurisdictional errors, the basis for revision, concern whether a court has exceeded its authority, while appeal grounds can involve factual or legal disagreements about the case outcome, allowing broader scrutiny of the lower court’s decisions .

Reference is limited to substantial questions of law and can only occur when proceedings are pending, whereas appeals can be made on broader grounds after a decree or order is passed. This limitation narrows the scope of cases that can seek reference, often requiring appeals for broader issues .

The High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction suo moto when there are jurisdictional errors by a subordinate court, even if no application is filed by an aggrieved party, allowing the High Court to address errors on its own motion .

The lack of provision for a second review limits error correction to a single reconsideration by the same court, potentially leaving unresolved issues that can't be appealed further, implying that some judicial mistakes may remain uncorrected, relying heavily on the initial review's accuracy .

The procedures of reference address doubts on legal questions by involving higher courts, review allows corrections of errors post-decree by the same court, and revision corrects jurisdictional errors at the discretion of High Courts. Together, they provide comprehensive checks within the system, aiming to prevent miscarriages of justice by assuring errors are addressed at various judicial levels .

A subordinate court refers a case to the High Court if there is a reasonable doubt on a question of law, which is narrower than the grounds for an appeal. An appeal can be made on broader grounds, including questions of fact or law, to any superior court beyond the one passing the original decree or order .

The process of review allows the same court that passed the decree or order to reconsider the decision, ensuring errors can be addressed promptly. This differs from appeals, which involve a superior court reviewing the matter, allowing for broader examination of the decision made, potentially by different judges .

You might also like