Chapter 16: Reference, Review, and Revision
1. Reference (Sections 113 & Order 46 CPC)
• Definition: Referral by a subordinate court to the High Court
Division for its opinion on a question of law or usage with the force
of law.
• When Reference May Be Made:
o In a pending suit/appeal/execution where decree is not
appealable.
o A question of law or legal usage arises.
o The court entertains reasonable doubt on that point.
• Procedure:
o Court formulates a statement of facts and legal questions.
o Sends it with its opinion to the High Court Division.
o Proceedings may be stayed, but the decree/order isn’t executed
until High Court’s judgment is received.
• Special Cases:
o Jurisdictional doubts in Small Cause matters.
o Mistaken jurisdiction assumptions can also be referred.
• Distinction from Appeal:
o Reference is initiated by court (discretionary); appeal is a party’s
right.
o Reference occurs pre-adjudication; appeal occurs post-decision.
2. Review (Section 114 & Order 47 CPC)
• Definition: Judicial re-examination of a case by the same court/judge
who delivered the decision.
• When Review is Maintainable:
o No appeal allowed or no appeal preferred.
o Decision on reference from a Court of Small Causes.
• Who May Apply:
o A “person aggrieved” by a decree/order.
o Even third parties if prejudicially affected.
• Grounds for Review:
o Discovery of new and important evidence.
o Error apparent on the face of the record.
o Any other sufficient reason (e.g., misapprehension of facts,
denial of opportunity, non-consideration of legal provisions).
• Procedure & Stages:
o Three stages: initial scrutiny, hearing, re-hearing (if granted).
o Reviewed by same judge or successor (under conditions).
o No second review allowed on a reviewed order.
• Distinction from Reference & Appeal:
o Review is post-judgment by the same court; Reference is pre-
judgment to the High Court; Appeal is a substantive right to a
higher court.
3. Revision (Section 115 CPC)
• Definition: Superior court’s (High Court or District Judge) correction
of a jurisdictional or legal error committed by a subordinate court.
• When Revision Lies:
o No appeal lies from the decree/order.
o There is an error of law causing a failure of justice.
• Scope of Revisional Power:
o High Court: against decisions of District Judge or lower courts.
o District Judge: against orders of Joint District, Senior Assistant,
or Assistant Judges.
o Discretionary in nature.
• Limits of Revision:
o Cannot reassess or reappreciate evidence.
o Cannot act as appellate court.
o Only legal/jurisdictional errors apparent on record.
• Time Limit:
o Not fixed by CPC; generally, the time limits for appeals apply
(30 days for District Court, 90 days for High Court Division).
• Distinction from Appeal & Review:
o No right to revision; purely discretionary.
o More restricted in scope than appeal.
o Review is by the same court; revision is by a higher court.
Judicial Precedents Cited in "Reference,
Review and Revision" Chapter
On Review
• Sidebotham, re, ex parte Sidebotham (1880) LR 14 Ch D 458, 465
(CA)
Defines “person aggrieved” in review context.
Cited in: CK Takwani, Civil Procedure (EBC Publishing Ltd, 8th ed,
2017) 564.
• GM, Postal Insurance v ABM Abu Taher (2009) 61 DLR (AD) 97
Review is not a substitute for appeal; allowed only for error on the
face of record.
• Fazie Karim v Bangladesh (1996) 48 DLR 178, 180
Rehearing is not allowed unless specific grounds under Or 47 r 1 are
satisfied.
• Idris Ali v Monoranjan Bagchi (1970) 22 DLR 214
Review isn't for mere dissatisfaction with the decision.
• Halima Jaman v Bangladesh (1998) 50 DLR 352, 354
New evidence must materially affect the merits of the case.
• Arun Bhowmick v Selim Reza (1988) BLD 180
Court must clearly find that new evidence was not known despite due
diligence.
• Ali v Mohammad Ali (1992) BLD 387
Error apparent must be self-evident; cannot require deep argument.
• Mathura Mohan v Hazera Khatun (1996) 48 DLR 190, 192
Failure to consider a provision of law justifies review.
• Solaiman v Begum Rezia Khatoon (1997) 49 DLR 437
Review lies when important evidence was not adduced or missed.
• Executive Engineer, R & H v Naderuzzaman (2007) 59 DLR 637,
639
Wrong or non-application of law is not a ground for review.
• Abdul Halim Miah v Bangladesh (2006) 54 DLR (AD) 21, 22
Review not allowed unless error is apparent on the face of the record.
• Akbar Hossain v Agrani Bank (2002) 54 DLR (AD) 21, 22
Omission to place a decision during hearing is not ground for review.
On Revision
• Hefzur Rahman v Shamsun Nahar Begum (1999) 51 DLR (AD)
172, 187
Error of law must appear within the suit’s framework.
• Gulf Air Company v Travel Trade Ltd (2013) 65 DLR (AD) 141,
143–144
Notice is essential before revisional interference.
• Nurul Islam v A Huq Munshi (2006) 58 DLR 538, 544
High Court Division can scrutinize evidence to assess failure of
justice.
• Sharif Miah v Rina (2015) 67 DLR 16, 17
Additional evidence may be taken in exceptional revision cases.
• Surjat Ali Fakir v Kasum Ali Fakir (2014) 66 DLR 587, 589
No revision for concurrent findings unless there's misreading or non-
consideration.
• Sabuj Miah v Sultanuddin (2019) 71 DLR 163, 171
High Court has a duty to correct errors in revision.
• Chowdhury Mosaddequl v Abdullah al Munsur (2018) 70 DLR
137, 148
Revision cannot consider new facts via affidavit; jurisdiction is
limited.
• World Bank Office v Ismet Zerin Khan (2018) 70 DLR 137, 148
High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or overturn concurrent
findings.
• Abu Sayed v Abdul (2012) 64 DLR 298, 300–301
Misreading evidence is not a ground for revision.
• Habibur Rahman v Gulnaran Begum (2012) 64 DLR (AD) 133,
137
Revision only allowed if legal error results in injustice.
• Siris Chandra Mondal v Sunil Kumar Mondal (2015) 67 DLR 432,
434
Revision time limit is interpreted based on appeal time limit (30
days).
• Ramizuddin v Kazi Tajul Islam (1997) 49 DLR 612, 613
Revision to High Court Division should be filed within 90 days.