In the Indian legal system, the principles of finality and justice are balanced by provisions allowing courts to review their judgments under certain circumstances. Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), empower courts to re-examine their decisions to rectify errors, prevent miscarriage of justice, and uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

MEANING AND DEFINITION

A review refers to the judicial re-examination of a case by the same court and, if possible, by the same judge who delivered the original judgment. This process enables the court to correct its own errors without necessitating an appeal to a higher court. The primary objective is to ensure that justice is not compromised due to inadvertent mistakes or oversight.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

• SECTION 114 OF CPC: This section grants the substantive right of review, stating that any person considering themselves aggrieved by:

  • a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but not preferred,
  • or from which no appeal is allowed,
  • or by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,
    may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order.

• ORDER XLVII OF CPC: This order outlines the procedural aspects of filing a review petition. Rule 1 specifies the grounds on which a review can be sought:

  • Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced at the time when the decree was passed or order made.
  • Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
  • Any other sufficient reason.

GROUNDS FOR REVIEW

1. Discovery of New Evidence:
   If a party discovers new and significant evidence that was not available at the time of the original judgment despite due diligence, they may seek a review. The evidence must be relevant and likely to alter the judgment. For instance, in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., (2013) 8 SCC 337, the Supreme Court interpreted the discovery of new evidence as a valid ground for review.

2. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:
   This implies an obvious and patent mistake in the judgment that does not require elaborate argument to establish. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170, the Supreme Court held that an error apparent must be self-evident and not something that can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning.

3. Any Other Sufficient Reason:
   This is a residual clause allowing courts to entertain a review for reasons analogous to the first two grounds. It ensures flexibility in addressing situations where adherence to the original judgment would result in a miscarriage of justice.

PROCEDURE FOR FILING A REVIEW PETITION

• Who May Apply:
  Any person aggrieved by a decree or order who, due to the specified grounds, seeks a re-examination of the judgment. The applicant must demonstrate that they have suffered a legal grievance or that their rights have been directly affected by the decision.

• Time Frame:
  An application for review should be filed within 30 days from the date of the decree or order, as prescribed under Article 124 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

• Form of Application:
  The application must be in the form of a memorandum, stating clearly the grounds for review. It should be precise and supported by relevant documents or evidence.

• Hearing Process:
  Initially, the court examines the application ex parte to decide whether there is a prima facie case for review. If satisfied, it issues a notice to the opposite party and conducts a hearing to determine the merits of the review petition.

LIMITATIONS AND SCOPE

The power of review is not an inherent right but a statutory one, and it must be exercised within the confines of the law. It is not an appeal in disguise, and the court cannot reappreciate the evidence to reach a different conclusion. The review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or considering new evidence that could not be produced earlier despite due diligence.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN REVIEW AND APPEAL

While both review and appeal are mechanisms to challenge a court’s decision, they differ fundamentally:

• Review: Aims to correct errors apparent on the face of the record or consider new evidence by the same court that delivered the judgment.
• Appeal: Involves a higher court re-examining the case to assess the correctness of the lower court’s decision, including reappreciation of evidence and legal interpretations.

CASE LAWS ILLUSTRATING REVIEW JURISDICTION

• Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 1 SCC 674:
  The Supreme Court emphasized that the primary purpose of a review is not to provide a fresh opportunity to argue the case but to correct errors apparent on the face of the record.

• Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167:
  The Court held that a review is not an appeal in disguise and should not be used to reargue the case on merits.

CONCLUSION

Section 114 and Order XLVII of the CPC provide a vital mechanism for rectifying judicial errors, ensuring that the ends of justice are met. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and within the prescribed legal framework to maintain the balance between finality of judgments and fairness in the judicial process. For law students and practitioners, understanding the nuances of review jurisdiction is essential for effective legal practice and upholding the rule of law.

REFERENCES

• Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., (2013) 8 SCC 337.
• Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170.