Highlight the various grounds on which the power of Review could be exercised.
Can the
Civil Court review its own judgement?
REVIEW
Introduction
The doctrine of review forms a narrow but vital exception to the rule of finality of
judgments. Ordinarily, once a court delivers and signs its judgment, it becomes functus
officio — its authority over the matter ceases. Yet, recognizing the possibility of human
fallibility, the law confers a limited jurisdiction upon the same court to revisit its decision to
correct patent errors or prevent miscarriage of justice.
This power is embodied in Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, which collectively provide both the substantive right and procedural machinery for
review. The power of review is not meant to let someone argue the same case again — it
exists only to correct clear and obvious injustice.
As emphasized in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A review is a serious matter and should
be used only when a clear mistake or major error has occurred because of human error by
the court.
Meaning and Nature of Review
The term review means “to reconsider” or “to look again.” In judicial sense, it implies a re-
examination of a case by the same court and, ideally, the same judge who rendered the
original decision
The power of review is both substantive and procedural:
Substantive, as it must be expressly conferred by statute — there is no inherent
power of review in any court.
Procedural, as every court or tribunal has the power to correct unintentional
mistakes in its orders — whether they arise from procedural defects, mathematical
or clerical errors, or from fraud or misrepresentation by a party. Such corrections can
be made ex debito justitiae, that is, as a duty to ensure justice and prevent misuse of
the court’s process. (Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban).
Thus, the power of review stands at the intersection of finality and fairness — it protects the
sanctity of judgments while ensuring that palpable errors do not perpetuate injustice.
Object and Philosophy of Review
The purpose of a review is to allow the same court — and ideally the same judge — to
reconsider its own judgment to ensure justice is not defeated by human error. The concept
of review originates from the courts of equity and is based on the understanding that judges,
being human, can make mistakes.
In Sow Chandra Kante v. S.K. Habib, the Supreme Court observed that the object of review
is to prevent miscarriage of justice and not to afford an aggrieved party a fresh opportunity
to reargue the case. The power of review is thus a judicial safeguard to uphold fairness,
equity, and consistency in judicial decisions.
Moreover, Malthesh Gudda Pooja v. State of Karnataka emphasized that the review should
preferably be heard by the same judge who delivered the judgment, as he would be best
placed to identify and rectify any mistake.
If another judge hears the case, he may see it differently and affect consistency. Hence, to
uphold judicial discipline and uniformity, the same judge should hear the review whenever
possible.
Grounds for Exercising the Power of Review
Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC enumerates three exclusive grounds for invoking review
jurisdiction. They are strictly construed, for otherwise the finality of litigation would be
undermined.
1. Discovery of New and Important Matter or Evidence
A review may be granted where the applicant discovers new and important evidence which,
despite exercising due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at
the time of the original judgment.
This principle prevents injustice arising from genuine unavailability of crucial material. In
Nundo Lal v. Punchanon Mukherjee, it was held that When a party seeks a review based on
newly discovered evidence, the court must exercise great caution before granting it.
Similarly, Sardar Balbir Singh v. Atma Ram The purpose of this provision is not to let the
court deliver a second judgment or to give another chance to a party who lost the case due
to their own carelessness or inattention
For a review to be granted on this ground:
1. The evidence must be relevant and material, and
2. It must be of such character that it could alter the judgment if produced earlier (In
Re Appa Rao).
Illustrations:
The discovery of a document containing an admission of liability by the defendant
would be a good ground for review (Faiz Mohammad v. Mohammad Zakariya).
Review cannot, however, be sought for new points of law or subsequent changes in law; nor
can negligence or indifference justify it.
2. Mistake or Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
This ground refers to an obvious and self-evident error, not one which requires elaborate
argument or reappraisal of evidence.
In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, the Court held that such an error must be clear
on the face of the record and not one which needs elaborate arguments to establish.
ERRORS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD
Judgment delivered without considering a statutory amendment or a binding
precedent.
Decision rendered without giving opportunity of hearing.
Failure to try a material issue or consideration of matters not in issue.
ERRORS NOT APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD
Mere erroneous conclusions on merits.
The fact that another High Court has taken a different view on the same issue.
When a judgment is based on two or more independent grounds, and only one of
them is erroneous.
This distinction preserves the finality of judgments while allowing correction of manifest
illegality or oversight.
3. Any Other Sufficient Reason
This is a residuary ground, intended to cover situations analogous to the previous two. In
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius, the Supreme Court held that
the phrase “any other sufficient reason” means “a reason sufficient on grounds at least
analogous to those specified in the rule.”
Sufficient reasons include:
Judgment passed under misapprehension of facts or circumstances.
Absence of fair opportunity to produce evidence.
Failure to consider a material issue or statutory provision.
Conversely, negligence of counsel, non-appearance of parties, or dissatisfaction with the
reasoning are not sufficient reasons.
This clause operates as a safety valve, ensuring that procedural rigidity does not lead to
substantive injustice.
Who May Seek Review
Only a “person aggrieved” by a decree or order may apply for review. A person is said to be
“aggrieved” when a legal right or interest is prejudicially affected (Attorney General of
Gambia v. N’Jie).
A stranger to the proceeding ordinarily cannot seek review, unless the judgment directly
affects his rights (Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab).
Can a Civil Court Review Its Own Judgment?
Yes — a civil court can review its own judgment, but only within the confines of Section 114
read with Order 47 CPC.
There is no inherent power of review in civil courts; such power must be expressly
conferred by law.
In Danomal v. Union of India, it was held that when a statute prescribes a particular mode
of review, it must be exercised only in that manner and not otherwise.
Hence:
The civil court may review its own decree or order on the prescribed grounds.
Ideally, the same judge should hear the review; however, in cases of transfer,
retirement, or death, the successor judge of concurrent jurisdiction may decide it.
The court cannot, under the guise of review, re-hear the entire matter as an appeal.
This ensures that the review jurisdiction remains corrective, not appellate.
By Whom Review May Be Made
A review means reconsidering the same matter by the same court and the same
judge who passed the original order.
If the judge who delivered the judgment is available, he alone has the authority to
review it, as he best understands the case and is aware of what arguments were
made or omitted.
This ensures accurate correction of any apparent mistakes or errors in the order.
Therefore, wherever possible, the same judge should hear the review petition.
However, in exceptional situations where the original judge is unavailable — due to
death, transfer, or other unavoidable reasons — the successor judge or another
judge of concurrent jurisdiction may hear and decide the review petition.
Such substitution is permitted only out of necessity (ex necessitate) to ensure justice
is not delayed or denied.
No Inherent Power of Review
The power of review is not inherent; it must be specifically granted by law, either
expressly or by necessary implication.
Without such authority, a court cannot review its own order.
Hence, if the power is not provided by statute, the correctness or validity of the
earlier order cannot be re-examined.
Nonetheless, courts have a duty to correct grave and manifest errors committed by
them in the interest of justice.
Form of Application
A review application should generally be made in the form of a memorandum of
appeal.
However, the form is not decisive — what matters is the substance of the application
(Raja Shatrunjit v. Mohd. Azmat).
Suo Motu Review
The power of review can be exercised only on an application by an aggrieved
person.
The Civil Procedure Code does not permit a court to review its order on its own (suo
motu).
As held in Danomal v. Union of India, when a statute prescribes a specific procedure,
it must be followed strictly and not in any other manner.
Hence, there is no provision in Section 114 or Order 47 CPC that allows a court to
review its decision on its own motion.
Successive Applications
Multiple review petitions on the same matter are not allowed.
Once a review is decided, it cannot be reviewed again.
The decision in a review petition operates as res judicata in any subsequent petition,
unless new and distinct grounds exist.
The Supreme Court has discouraged the practice of filing repeated review petitions
disguised as applications for “clarification,” “modification,” or “recall” (Delhi
Administration v. Gurdip Singh).
Procedure at Hearing
A review application generally passes through three stages:
1. First Stage
The process begins with an ex parte application by the aggrieved party.
The court may either dismiss it outright if no valid grounds are shown, or issue
notice to the opposite party to show cause why the review should not be granted.
2. Second Stage
The application is then heard by the same court and judge who passed the decree,
unless the judge has left the court or is unable to hear it for six months or more.
If the court finds no ground for review, the petition is rejected.
If valid grounds are made out, the court admits the review and orders a rehearing of
the matter.
3. Third Stage
The case is reheard on merits, either immediately or on a date fixed by the court.
After rehearing, the court may confirm, modify, or reverse its earlier decree.
Once review is allowed, the earlier decree is recalled, and any subsequent order
passed becomes a new decree, replacing the original one.
Limitation
The period of limitation for filing a review application in any court other than the
Supreme Court is 30 days from the date of the decree or order.
Appeal
An order granting a review is appealable, since it alters the original decision.
However, an order rejecting a review is not appealable.
Moreover, no second appeal lies against an order made in appeal from a review
order.
Revision
A review application is considered a judicial proceeding, and the decision on it
amounts to a “case decided” under the Code.
Therefore, such a decision may be subject to revision under Section 115 CPC.
Review in Writ Petitions
After the amendment of Section 141 CPC, it is clear that the provisions of Order 47
do not apply to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
However, nothing in Article 226 prevents a High Court from reviewing its own order
to correct grave and palpable errors or to prevent miscarriage of justice.
The High Court’s review power in writ matters is inherent and plenary, though to be
exercised only on grounds analogous to those in Order 47 Rule 1.
Review by the Supreme Court
Under Article 137 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to review
its own judgments, subject to any law made by Parliament or the Rules under
Article 145.
This power is constitutional and therefore cannot be restricted by the Code of Civil
Procedure.
Thus, the Supreme Court retains its own independent authority to review its
decisions in the interest of justice.