1.

INTRODUCTION:
The concepts of reference, review and revision serve as essential checks on the legal
system to guarantee justice is administered fairly and correctly. These clauses give higher courts
the power to oversee and direct the operations of lower courts and permit the correction of
judgment errors. A party may file an appeal against the trial court’s decision with the higher court
if he is dissatisfied by the court’s decision. The appellate court typically rehearse the entire
dispute after an appeal.

The aggrieved part, however, does not have to go through the trouble of contesting
another suit in the form of an appeal in cases where there are technical or procedural errors.
Sections 113,114 and 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, respectively introduce the concepts of
Reference, Review and Revision for the same purpose.

According to the Code, an application for Reference, Review and Revision may be
submitted to the relevant courts. The proceedings under these applications do not address the
case’s facts or evidence. They are solely functional in nature.

A Subordinate court may request a High Court’s opinion on matters of law in which it is
uncertain by using a reference under Sections 113 and Order 46 of CPC. The same court may
reconsider its own decision through a review under Section 114 and Order 47 of CPC, for
specific reasons, such as the discovery of new evidence, an error that appears to be evident from
the record, or any other compelling reason. A revision under Section 115 of CPC gives the High
Court the authority to get involved when a lower court has done something that is outside of its
authority or that is materially irregular.
2. HISTORY OF THE CODE, 1908:

HISTORY:

Prior to 1859, India’s civil court process was not governed by any unified, codified
legislation. During that time, the provincial courts at Mofussils and the crown courts at President
Towns were subject to distinct civil procedure systems, as well as periodic special acts and
regulations. With the introduction of the Civil Procedure Code (Act/viii of 1859), a uniform code
of civil procedure was first established in 1859.

However, it was ineffective because it did not apply to Sadar Diwani Adalats (Principal
Courts under the Governor General’s Judicial Plan) or the supreme courts (Crown Courts under
the Royal Charter). The Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats were abolished with the introduction
of the Indian High Courts Act,1861, as High Courts were established in their place in Madras,
Bombay, and Calcutta, and the 1859 code was extended to high courts.

Following a series of amendments, the 1859 code eventually evolved into by the Code of
Civil Procedure in 1877, which was followed by amendments in 1878 and 1879. The third Code
of Civil Procedure was enacted in 1882, and it underwent numerous amendments before the
current Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was passed, eventually erasing the flaws in the 1882
code. The Code of Civil Procedure became operative on January 1st, 1909. With a notification in
the official gazette, the state government in question may extend the provisions of this code or
any of them to all or a portion of the state of the Nagaland or such tribal areas, as the case may
be, with any additional, incidental or relevant notifications that may be specified in the
notification. The code applies to all of India, with the exception of the state of Nagaland and
tribal areas.

OBJECT:

1. Consolidating and amending the laws related to India’s civil court procedures is the
primary goal of the Code of Civil procedure.
2. Therefore, it was stated in the Code’s preamble that it was created to amend and combine
the laws related to the court procedure.
3. In India, civil courts with civil jurisdiction oversee civil court proceedings and the parties
involved until the day of the decree and order’s execution, or realization of its formality.
 4. To put it simply, procedure law seeks to put substantive law’s basic principles into
practice. By upholding citizen’s rights and responsibilities, it guarantees equitable justice.

3. DEFINITIONS:

DECREE:

According to the Section 2(2), a decree is defined as, “the formal expression of an
adjudication which conclusively determines the rights of parties with regard to all or any of the
matters in controversy in a suit.”1

In general, a decree is always based on and comes after a judgment, which is final in and
of itself, it is separated into five categories. A decree could be preliminary or final. It is final in
nature and is a formal declaration or adjudication. An order may be delivered along with a
decree. The decree outlines the suit’s conclusion and officially determines each party’s rights
concerning the suit’s debated issues. Since the court decides the parties rights, the suit is deemed
resolved after the decree is passed.

CONTENTS OF DECREE:

1. Number of the suit- Case number

2. Name and details of the parties
3. Particulars of the claim
4. The relief granted to the aggrieved party
5. Costs incurred in the suits
6. Signature of the judge and date of the judgment.

JUDGMENT:

Section 2(9) of CPC defines, judgment as “the statement given by the judge on the
grounds of a decree or order.”2

A judgment is a formal expression of a judicial decision given by a court in a lawsuit. It consists

of the reasoning and conclusions of the judge, which lead to the passing of a decree or 1an order.

1. Section-2(2) of CPC

2. Section-2(9) of CPC.
A summary of the pleadings, issues, findings on each issue, ratio decidendi, and the relief the
court granted must be included in every judgment.2

CONTENTS OF JUDGMENT: ORDER XX, RULE 4 & 5:

1. The main points of the case in concise form.

2. The points for determination.
3. The decision to make regarding each issue.
4. The reasons for the decision.
5. The nature of the offence.
6. The sentence to be given.
7. Date and place of judgment.
8. Signature of the judge.4

[Link]:

MEANING:

In common sense, reference means the mentioning to, pointing to, or paying attention to
something. In CPC, a reference is made when a lower court asks the High Court for advice on a
particular legal issue.3 This usually occurs during a civil suit, appeal, or execution proceeding
when the lower court finds a legal question to be one of reasonable doubt. To put it simply, a
reference is a request for the High Court’s opinion on a particular legal matter.

OBJECT:

The main object of the reference provision is to prevent mistakes that cannot be corrected
later by allowing subordinate courts to obtain the High Court’s opinion in non-appealable cases
in the context of legal issue. This section also guarantees that the highest court in the state will
interpret and decide whether a legislative provision is valid. As a result, the reference must be
made prior to the case’s judgment being delivered. This process is employed when a court
encounters a legal issue that needs to be clarified or guided by a higher court, particularly when it
concerns a significant legal issue or judicial interpretation.

23. section 113 of CPC

4. Order XX Rule 4 & 5.

UNDER CPC:

SECTION 113:

A lower court may submit a case to the High Court and ask for its opinion under Section
113. When the lower court is unsure about a legal issue, they make this request.3

Importantly, only the lower court has the authority to request a reference on its own; the
parties to the civil suit do not have the authority to do so. The judge overseeing the case must
have genuine doubts about the legal aspect in question, and the reference is limited to legal
questions.

4.1. CONDITIONS OF REFERENCE:

ORDER XLVI:

The High Court is consulted on the matter, when a suit or appeal is heard in which the
decree is not appealable, or when a question of law or usage with legal forces arises during the
execution of a decree on which the court trying the suit or appeal, or executing the decree,
entertains a reasonable doubt, the court may, on its own initiative or at the request of any party,
draft a statement of the case’s facts and the point on which the doubt is entertained, and refer that
statement along with its own opinion on the matter to the High Court’s decision.

CONDITIONS:

Order XLVI, Rule 1 of the CPC states that in order for a reference to be made, a number of
requirements must be met, they are:5

[Link] Suit or Appeal:

A reference can only be made if the court is currently considering a suit, appeal, or
execution proceeding and the decree or order issued in that case is not appealable.

5.O. XLVI, R. 1
 2. Legal Provision in Doubt:

The suit, appeal, or proceeding must raise a legal issue. A legal provision that is
significant to the case must give rise to a reasonable doubt in the court regarding the
meaning or validity.

3. Reasonable Doubt:

The legal issue must be one that the lower court can reasonably doubt. This question may
concern whether a legal provision is invalid in the particular circumstances of the case or
ultra vires, or beyond its legal authority.

[Link] and Optional Reference:

When there is uncertainty about the legality of an Act, Ordinance, or Regulation,

reference is required. Reference is not required, though, if the question is about other
legal matters. The referring court has complete discretion over whether orr not to make
the reference.

[Link] Reference:

To make sure the court doesn’t proceed with a faulty interpretation of the law, a reference
should be made before the case’s judgment is delivered.

4.2. WHO MAY APPLY:

A case may be referred to the High Court by the Court of Civil judicature by Suo moto
or in response to an application from a party. Importantly, the case of Ramakant Bindal v. State
of U.P. established that a tribunal does not have the authority to make a reference.6

4.3. POWER AND DUTY OF REFERRING COURT AND HIGH COURT:

REFERRING COURT:

Only when there is a true legal doubt in a suit, appeal, or execution proceeding that is currently
pending before the court may a reference under the CPC be made. Instead of being a

[Link] Bindal v. State of U.P. 1972.

hypothetical matter, the legal question that raises doubt must have truly come up in the case that
needs to be decided. As a result, references cannot be made based on future queries or issues that
might or might not come up later. If such a circumstance does occur, though, it might taken into
account as a reference.

HIGH COURT:

Consultative Jurisdiction:

When a reference is requested, the High Court has consultative jurisdiction. It is not required to
resolve the particular legal issue at hand.

Discretion in answering questions:

Under the CPC, the High Court is free to choose how to respond to the referred question. The
High Court may decide to respond to the inquiry and return the case to the referring court for
legal resolution in accordance with Order 46 of the code. As an alternative, the high Court can
suppress the question or even refuse to respond to it.

4.4. EFFECT OF REFERENCE:

In accordance with Rule 3 of Order 46, the High Court may decide the points raised by
the parties and forward a copy of its ruling to the lower court. The case is then decided by the
lower court to comply with the rulings stated in the judgment.7

[Link]:

MEANING:

Review means ‘to examine or to study again’ according to the dictionary. Therefore, the
purpose of the judgment review is to reexamine the case’s facts and ruling. Section 114 of the
CPC mentions the court’s substantive review power, which is the review of judgment. There are
no restrictions or requirements for review in this section. The law grants the authority to review,
and the court alone has the inherent authority to do so.

[Link] 46, Rule 3

 There is no inherent authority for a government official to reconsider their orders.

OBJECT:

The remedy of review, which involves the same court and judge reconsidering the
judgment, was taken from the equity courts. Common law was unaware of the idea. The remedy
resembles a writ of error quite a bit. Accepting human fallibility is the fundamental philosophy
underlying the recognition of the doctrine of review. Error caused by human cannot be allowed
to continue and undermine the rule of law. To avoid a miscarriage of justice, such errors must be
fixed. Above all, justice is supreme. It is a quality that overcomes all barriers. It cannot be
impeded by procedural rules or legal technicalities. The rule of law must yield to justice. It is
used to eliminate a delay and avoid interfering with finality.

Functus officio:

In reference to the court, “Functus Officio” means that “once the court passed any
judgment after the lawful hearing, then the case cannot reopen and the judgment is binding on
the parties.” What is required for the “Functus Officio” is a legitimate hearing and trial.

The exception to the Latin maxim “Functus Officio” is the right to review a judgment.
The process for reviewing the judgment will begin upon the application of a person or party who
feels aggrieved.

UNDER CPC:

Section 114 of CPC states that, “Review, subject as aforesaid, any person considering
himself aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from
which no appeal has been preferred, by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this
Code, or by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of
judgment to the Court which passes the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such
thereon as it thinks fit.”8

[Link] 114 of CPC.

Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC:

A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment
notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such
appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present
to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.”9

5.1. CIRCUMSTANCES AND GROUNDS:

CIRCUMSTANCES:

A review petition is maintainable in the following cases:

1. Cases in which no appeal lies.

2. Cases in which appeal lies but not preferred
3. Decisions on reference from Court of Small Causes.

GROUNDS:

To initiate Review, the following conditions must be met;

1. Existence of a Mistake or Error:

The record must appear to contain an error, which could be a factual error or mistake in
how the law is applied. The error could relate to the court’s judgment, a factual
misrepresentation, or the disregard for an important piece of evidence.

CASE LAW:

THUNGABHADRA INDUSTRIES LTD.

V.

GOVERNMENT OF A.P. (1964 SC 1372)

FACTS:

Vanaspati or hydrogenated groundnut oil, was produced by Thungabhadra Industries.

[Link] 47 Rule 1

[Link] Industries ltd v. Govt. of A.P. (1964 SC 1372)

The business argued that vanaspati was the same as groundnut oil, which was exempt from sales
tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. According to the ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court, vanaspati, or hydrogenated oil, was subject to sales tax since it was not the same as
groundnut oil.

The nosiness then claimed that there was a “error apparent on the face of the record” in a
review petition it filed in the High Court under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. The High Court
rejected the review petition, concluding that no review was appropriate because the issue had
already been addressed.

The business filed an appeal with the highest court.10

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court was correct to deny the review petition and whether the grounds
presented amounted to a “error apparent on the face of the record”?.

HELD:

The Supreme Court ruled that:

Only when an error is evident from the record, new evidence is found, or there is another
compelling reason can review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC be considered. An error is self-
evident and does not need to be proven through a protracted process of reasoning or arguments is
referred to as an error apparent. In this instance, the High Court had previously considered and
determined the appellant’s argument that hydrogenated oil was still groundnut oil in the initial
ruling. In a review, bringing up the same issue again would be identical to rearguing the case,
which is prohibited by review jurisdiction.

Consequently, the High Court made the right decision in rejecting the review petition.10

2. Discovery of New Evidence:

The court may reconsider its ruling to make sure justice is done if important new
information becomes available that was noy known at the time of the judgment was
delivered. The applicant must show that if the new evidence had been presented sooner, it
might have affected the court’s ruling.
 3. Other Sufficient Grounds:
Additional grounds might include instances in which the court overlooked important
evidence, neglected to take into account a material fact, or made a mistake that led to
injustice.

5.2. WHO MAY APPLY AND LIMITATION:

WHO MAY APPLY:

A person who is directly and immediately impacted by the decree or order is considered a
party aggrieved under Section 114 of the CPC. A person cannot request review if he is not a party
to the proceeding or if a decree or order binds him. A third party who has been harmed or
impacted by a ruling or order may request a review.

LIMITATION:

According to the Supreme Court’s 1966 Rules, the application for review must be
submitted within 30 days of the judgment or order being issued. Additionally, an appeal of any
sentence or judgment in the High Court must be filed within 60 days of the judgment date. The
statute of limitations for appealing a death sentence is 30 days from the date the order was
passed.

[Link] CAN MAKE REVIEW:

According to Rule 5 of Order 47 of CPC,

A review needs to be heard by the same court or judge. This is because it will be most
convenient for the same judge to review the ruling. However, it is well-established law that any
court with the necessary authority can hear the case if the same judge is not available at that
time. The best judge to review the ruling will be the same one.

Because the same judge is better and more efficient than others at reviewing their own
decisions. With the exception of situations in which the judge is not present for at least 6 months
after the review application is filed.11

[Link] 5 of Order 47
5.4. REJECTION OF APPLICATION AND APPEAL:

GROUNDS OF REJECTION:

1. In cases where multiple judges render a decision, the majority will decide on the
application. When more than one judge hears a review application, the bench is
divided and will reject the application, under Rule 6.12
2. Where there is no sufficient ground for review, it shall reject the application.
3. When application is made after expiry of time.
4. Failure of appearance of applicant. The applicant may request an order to restore
his application, and if it is determined that there was a good reason for his
absence, the court will restore his appeal.

APPEAL:

An order rejecting a review application is not appealable, according to Rule 7 of Order 47 of the
CPC. If a review application is denied by the judges or court, the party who filed it is not
permitted to appeal again. The approved application is subjected to appeal.13

5.5. POWER AND DUTY OF COURT:

The well-known maxim “actus nae neminem gravabit” means an act of court shall harm
none, reflects this fundamental legal principle. It is founded on the ideas of equity, justice, and
good conscience. Therefore, the court has the authority and responsibility to correct its own
mistakes whenever it determines that a party has been harmed or lost something as a result of the
court’s error.

[Link]:

MEANING:

The process by which the High Court examines a Subordinate Court’s orders or rulings is
known as Revision. If the subordinate Court’s order violates the law or contains a jurisdictional

12. Order 47, Rule 6

13. Order 47, Rule 7.

errors, the High Court may amend it in accordance with Section 115 of the CPC.
OBJECT:
Ensuring that no subordinate court acts arbitrarily, illegally, or irregularly beyond its
jurisdiction is the main goal of a revisional authority of the High Court empowered by Section11.
This allows the High Court to ensure that justice is delivered while making sure that the
proceedings are carried out in accordance with the rule of law and the advancement of fairness. It
should be mentioned that Subordinate Court judges have complete decision-making authority.
There is no “jurisdictional error” on their part, even if they make an incorrect or extrajudicial
decision. These jurisdictional mistakes made by an lower courts can be corrected by the high
Court. This gives any aggrieved party the chance to rectify the non-appealable order by a
Subordinate Court.

UNDER CPC:

The Section 115 of CPC, states that, “ the High Court may call for the record of any case which
has been decided by any court subordinate to High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and
if such subordinate court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to
have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction
illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks
fit.”14

[Link]:

1. There must be a case decided by a subordinate court.

2. no appeal should lie from that decision to the High Court.

3. The subordinate court must have

a. Exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, or

b. Failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or
c. Acted illegally or with irregularity.

___________
14. Section 115 of CPC.
6.2. WHO MAY FILE AND LIMITATION:

WHO MAY FILE:

A person who is a necessary party and whose rights and interests are affected by a decree and
who has not heard is competent to invoke the revisional power of the High Court.

LIMITATION:

Section 115 of the Code, prescribes a specific limitation period of 90 days for filing a revision
petition.

Alternative remedy:

The High Court has the authority to decide how to apply revisional jurisdiction, and no party
who feels aggrieved my assert this authority as a right. The court may not use its revisional
jurisdiction if the aggrieved party has access to an alternative remedy and relief to the aggrieved
party. By doing this, revisional jurisdiction is kept from being abused and is only used when
absolutely required.
[Link] BETWEEN REFERENCE, REVIEW AND REVISION:

FEATURE REFERENCE REVIEW REVISION

S
Who initiates Subordinate Court refers The aggrieved party The aggrieved party
the matter. files the review. files a revision
petition.
When used To seek clarification of a To correct an error To correct an illegal,
question of law. apparent on the record. jurisdictional error by
a lower court.
Scope Limited to legal Limited to errors on the Focuses on
question. face of records. jurisdictional error or
failure to follow legal
principles.
Court The High Court. Same Court that passed High Court (except in
involved the original decree. certain cases involving
the Supreme Court).
Grounds A question of law Errors apparent on the Failure of justice and
requiring clarification. record or new evidence. jurisdictional errors.

Time limit No fixed time limit, Application must be Revision must be filed
determined by the court. filed within 30 days. within 90 days.

[Link] LAWS: