Dr.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

LUCKNOW

ACADEMIC SESSION:- 2020-2021

FINAL DRAFT

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

Review & it’s Grounds under CPC

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Mr. VIPUL VINOD AYUSH ARORA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR ROLL NO – 190101045

(LAW) B.A.LL.B.(Hons)

SEMESTER-IV
 Declaration

I hereby declare that this project work entitled as “Review & It’s Grounds Under
C.PC.” is original work. This work is submitted as a part of work undertaken for
the partial fulfillment of the B.A. LL.B.(Hons.) 5-year integrated course of
RMLNLU, Lucknow, under the Guidance of Mr. Vipul Vinod.
 Acknowledgement

I would like to express my sincere thanks and deep gratitude to Vipul Vinod Sir
without whose insightful guidance this project work would have not been a
success.

I express my sincere thanks to the library staff of Dr. Madhu Limaye Library
(RMLNLU) for their cooperation in my Endeavour.

I would also in my cryptic gratitude towards my Parents who ensure my

capabilities and raise my confidence, also maintained mental and physical balance.

It is a great pleasure to acknowledge the contribution of my friends and seniors for

their moral and material support.

I hope you will appreciate this hard work that I have dedicated to this project.
Contents

 List of Important Cases

 Introduction
 Legal Provisions Provided in CPC, 1908
 Grounds & Conditions (Case Laws)
 Order 47 Rule 1: Grounds of Review
1. Discovery of New & Important Matter
2. Mistake or error apparent on the face of the Record
3. “Any other Sufficient Reason”
 Conclusion
 Bibliography
List of Important Cases:-
1. Lilly Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650
2. Data Processing Ltd. v. Ameer Trading Corprn. Ltd., Air 2003 Bom 228
3. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
4. Chhajju Ram v. Neki & Ors., AIR 1922 PC 112
5. S. Nagraj & Ors. V. State of Karnataka & Anr. 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595
6. State of West Bengal & Ors. V. Kamal Sengupta & Anr, (2008) 8 SCC 612
7. Hari Shankar v. Anath Nath, 1949 FC 106
8. Rajendra Kumar v. Rambai, AIR 2003 SC 2095
9. Kunja Behary Chakrabarti v. Kristo Dhone Majumdar, AIR 1939 Cal 42
10. B. Dhanalakshmi v. M. Shajaha, AIR 2004 Mad 512
11. Harivishnu v. Ahmad, AIR 1955 SC 233
12. National Insurance Co. v. Mohd Sultan Asim, 2005 AIHC 1616 (J&K)
13. Tungabhadra & C v. Govt., AIR 1964 SC 1372
14. Shatrunjit v. Md Azamat, AIR 1971 SC 1474
15. Moran Mar v. Mar Poulose, AIR 1954 SC 526
16. Rukhmabai v. Ganpatrao, AIR 1932 Nag 177
17. Chhajjuram v. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112
18. Bisheshwar Pratap v. Parath Nath, AIR 1934 PC 213
Introduction:-

“Review”, in a very general understanding of a layman, as described by the oxford dictionary,

states – “A formal assessment of something with the intention to institute a change if
necessary”.

“Review”, means the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or
improvement.1 Review lies at the instance of a person aggrieved, may not be party to the
proceedings2.

The Right of Review is granted by Civil Procedure Code as a remedy to be sought for an applied
under special circumstances and conditions. The objective of this right is to correct the error or
any mistake made in the decision of the court. The concept under the law actually goes in
consonance with the stated description, having in addition the conditions for applicability,
specific grounds along with other general rules.

According to the General Principle of Law, once the judgment is passed by the court, it becomes
Functus Officio3. A Power of Review should not be confused with the appellate powers, which
enables the court to correct all errors committed by the subordinate court. Greater care,
seriousness and strain should be given in review application as would not be fair for the court to
deal with the same case, the same parties over again & again and it would increase the backlog
of the case over the court.

A right of review is both substantive as well as procedural. As a substantive right, it has to be

conferred by law, either expressly or by necessary implications. There can be no inherent right of
review. As a procedural provision, every Court or tribunal can correct an inadvertent error which
has crept in the order due to procedural defect or mathematical or clerical error or by
misrepresentation or fraud of a party to the proceeding, which can be corrected Asex Debito
Justitae4. If a review is not maintainable, then it cannot be allowed by describing such
application as an ‘’clarification’’ or ‘’modification’’.

1
Lilly Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650.
2
Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. v. Ameer Trading Corprn. Ltd., Air 2003 Bom 228.
3
Having fulfilled the function, discharged the office, or accomplished the purpose, and therefore of no further force
or authority.
4
of or by reason of an obligation of justice.
A person aggrieved by a decree or order may apply for review of a Judgment. A person
aggrieved has been understood to mean who has a genuine grievance because an order has been
made which prejudicially affects his interests. But the concept, purpose and provisions ‘’person
aggrieved’’ varies according to the context, purpose and provisions of the statue. A person who
is neither a party to the proceedings nor a decree or order binds him, cannot apply for review as
the decree or order does not adversely or prejudicially affect him. The remedy of review, which
is a reconsideration of the Judgment by the same Court and by the same Judge, has been
borrowed from the Court of equity. This remedy has a remarkable resemblance to the writ of
error. Rectification of an order stems from the fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is
exercised to remove error and not to disturb finality.
Legal provisions provided in CPC, 1908:-

In Civil Procedure Code the provision for review is provided in Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1
respectively.

Section 114 of C.P.C. says that:-

Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-

a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no
appeal has been preferred,
b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Court, or
c) 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,
and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.

Order 47 Rule 1 provides for all the procedural provisions of review:

Application for review of the judgment.-

1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

a) By a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but form which no appeal
has been preferred,
b) By a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
c) By a decision on a reference from a [K] Court of Small Causes,

and who from the  discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by
him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason,
desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply
for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

2) 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.
5
[Explanation.- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of
the Court is based has been revised or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior
Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]

Section 114 read with O.47 R.1 C.P.C. prescribes the limitations for entertaining a review
petition which eventually will provide us the conditions & Grounds under which an application
for review can be filed.

The same are that the party filing the application for review has discovered a new and important
matter or evidence after exercise of due diligence which was not within its knowledge or could
not be produced by it at the time when the decree was passed; or order made or on account of
some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or ‘for any other sufficient reason’.

The aforesaid limitations are prescribed in a crystal clear language and before a party submits
that it had discovered a new and important matter or evidence which could not be produced at
the earlier stage, the condition precedent for entertaining the review would be to record the
finding as to whether at the initial stage, the party has acted with due diligence. “Due” means just
and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case6.

Some mistake or error, if made ground for review, it must be apparent on the face of the record
and if a party files an application on the ground of ‘some other sufficient reason’, it has to satisfy
that the said sufficient reason is analogous to the other conditions mentioned in the said rule i.e.
discovery of new and important matter or evidence which it could not discover with due
diligence or it was not within his knowledge, and thus, could not produce at the initial stage.
Apparent error on the face of record has been explained to include failure to apply the law of
limitation to the facts found by the Court or failure to consider a particular provision of a Statute
or a part thereof or a statutory provision has been applied though it was not in operation.

Review is permissible if there is an error of procedure apparent on the face of the record.
“Sufficient Reason” may include disposal of a case without proper notice to the party aggrieved.
Thus, if a person comes and satisfies the Court that the matter has been heard without serving a

5
Ins. by CPC (Amendment) Act 104 of 1976, S.92, (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).
6
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
notice upon him, review is maintainable for the “Sufficient reason” though there may be no error
apparent on the face of record.

Grounds & Conditions for review as pronounced in some recognized Cases:-

In Chhajju Ram V. Neki & Ors 7., it was held by the Privy Council that apology must be
discovered between two grounds specified therein, namely;

(i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; and

(ii) Error apparent on the face of record before entertaining the review on any other
sufficient ground.
The same view has been reiterated in Debi Prasad & Ors. V. Khelawan & Ors 8., Mohammad
Hasan Khan V. Ahmad Hafiz Ahmad Ali Khan & Anr 9., and Lily Thomas etc. etc. V. Union
of India10.

In S. Nagraj & Ors. V. State of Karnataka & Anr11, the Apex Court considered the scope of
review and observed as under:

“Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or reconsideration. Basic

philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm
of law, the courts and even the Statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision
legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved
out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. The expression, `for any other
sufficient reason’ in the clause has been given an expanded meaning and a decree or
order passed under misapprehension of true state of circumstances has been held to be
sufficient ground to exercise the power.”

In State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Kamal Sengupta & Anr 12., the Apex Court held that review
on the ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence can be taken into

7
Chhajju Ram v. Neki & Ors., AIR 1922 PC 112.
8
Debi Prasad & Ors. v. Khelawan & Ors., AIR 1957 All. 67.
9
Mohammad Hasan Khan v. Ahmad Hafiz Ahmad Ali Khan & Anr, AIR 1957 Nag 97.
10
Lily Thomas etc. etc. v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224.
11
S. Nagraj & Ors. V. State of Karnataka & Anr. 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595.
12
State of West Bengal & Ors. V. Kamal Sengupta & Anr, (2008) 8 SCC 612.
consideration if the same is of such a nature that if it had been produced earlier, it would have
altered the judgment under review and Court must be satisfied that the party who is adducing the
new ground was not having the knowledge of the same even after exercise of due diligence and
therefore, it could not be produced before the Court earlier. The error apparent signifies as an
error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed
examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position.
In case the error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of
reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of
review.
The Court further held that the purpose of review is rectification of an order which stems from
the fundamental principle that the justice is above all and it is exercised only to correct the error
which has occurred by some accident, without any blame.

A Full Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in The Nalagarh Dehati Cooperative
Transport Society Ltd., Nalagarh V. Beli Ram & Ors 13., considered the scope of review and
held that not considering an existing judgment of the Supreme Court may be a ground of review
and for the same it placed reliance upon the judgments of the Privy Council in Rajah Kotagiri
Venkata Subbamma Rao v. Rajah Vellanki Venkatrama Rao14, wherein it was held that the
purpose of review, inter alia, is to correct an apparent error which should not have been there
when the judgment was given. The Court also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Federal
Court in Hari Shankar V. Anath Nath15, wherein it was held as under:-
“......the error could not be one apparent on the face of record or even analogous to it.
When, however, the Court disposes of a case without adverting to or applying its mind to
a provision of law which gives it jurisdiction to act in a particular way, that may amount
to an error analogous to one apparent on the face of record sufficient to bring the case
within the purview of O.47 R.1, Civil Procedure Code.”

13
Nalagarh Dehati Cooperative Transport Society Ltd., Nalagarh V. Beli Ram & Ors, AIR 1981 HP 1.
14
Rajah Kotagiri Venkata Subbamma Rao v. Rajah Vellanki Venkatrama Rao, (1900) 27 IA 197 (PC).
15
Hari Shankar V. Anath Nath, 1949 FC 106.
Order 47 rule 1: Grounds & Conditions of review

Although major condition and how to apply them has been provided in Order 47, the 1976
Amendment is something that shouldn’t be overlooked. An explanation has been inserted to
settle the point that decision of law given subsequently by a superior court in any other case shall
not be a ground for review. It adopts the view taken in Liaqat v. Md Razi16, Lachmi v. Ghisa17,
Naranbhai v. Gopladas18, but a contrary decision was taken in Panthrose v. Sankaran19 is no
longer a good law which has been overruled by Nagaland Dehati &c v. Beliram.20

Scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. The court of
review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by definitive limits fixed by the language
used in Or 47 r 1.
It may allow a review on three specified grounds, namely,
1. discovery of new and important matter of evidence, which after the exercise of due
diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at
the time when the decree was passed or order was made;
2. mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
3. for any other sufficient reason21.
The foremost requirement is that the of which review is sought suffers from any error apparent
on the face of the order of which review is sought suffers from any error apparent on the face of
the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice22.

It is a basic principle of natural justice that a person who is going to be adversely affected by an
order must be heard before such an order is passed against him. Therefore, the High Court
recalled the order dismissing the writ petition in liminie23.

16
Liaqat v. Md. Razi, A 1944 Or 198.
17
Lachmi v. Ghisa, A 1960 Pu 43, 45.
18
Naranbhai v. Gopaldas, A 1972 G 229.
19
Panthrose v. Sankaran, A 1969 K 136.
20
Nagaland Dehati &c v. Beliram, A 1981 HP 1FB.
21
Rajendra Kumar v. Rambai, AIR 2003 SC 2095.
22
Ibid,.
23
Union of India v. Santosh Jain, (1999) 78 DLT 634.
Power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which may enable the appellate
Court to correct all errors of subordinate Court24.
Provisions relating to power of review under O. 47 R. 1 constitute an exception to the general
rule to the effect that once a judgment is signed and pronounced it cannot afterwards be altered.
Thus power to review is exercisable only where the circumstances are strictly covered by the
statutory exceptions contemplated under O. 47 R. 1.25
On final decision of appeal, particularly when the appellate order modifies or reverses the order
of original Court, as a general rule the appellate judgment stands in place of the original
judgment for all intents and purposes. It will not be permissible thereafter for the inferior or
original Court to modify, alter or reverse the original order, which would stand merged in the
appellate order26.

24
Sharada Bai v. Padamlal, 2003 AIHC (1756) (AP).
25
Chand Mal, LRs of v. Dhanna Lal, LRs of, 1998 AIHC 2713, 2714(Raj).
26
Delhi Urban House Owners Welfare Assn. v. UOI., 71 (1998) DLT 785.
1. Discovery of new and important matter of evidence:-

Application for review on the ground of discovery of new evidence should be considered with
great caution and should not be granted very lightly.
An applicant should show that
1. such evidence was available, and of undoubted character;
2. that it was so material that its absence might cause a miscarriage of justice;
3. that it could not with reasonable care ad diligence have been brought forward at the time
of decree27.
It is well settled that the new evidence discovered must be (i) relevant and (ii) of such a character
that had it been given it might possibly have altered the judgment.
The expression “new and important matter” in Order 47, Rule 1 refers to evidence or other
matter in the nature of evidence and not brought to the notice of the Court on the given date. 28
The Court should be furnished with the new evidence sought to be admitted, otherwise it is
impossible to tell what its real value is. The discovery is not only a discovery of new and
important materials or evidence but the discovery of any new material or evidence must be one
which was not within the knowledge of the party.

27
Kunja Behary Chakrabarti v. Kristo Dhone Majumdar, AIR 1939 Cal 42
28
Sanjeev Sarin v. Rita Wadhwa, 2002 AIHC 628.
2. Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record:-
The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of
which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order
to stand will lead to failure of justice. In absence of any such error, finality attached to the
judgment/order cannot be disturbed. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by
the process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record,
justifying the Court to exercise the Court to exercise the power of review.29
When an error is apparent on the face of the record, review is competent; no other consideration
is necessary. An error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or
exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be
left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case. 30 If by patent and glaring mistake
interest was not awarded, it can be reviewed. Error is not one limited to one of fact; it includes
obvious error of law.31
An error apparent on the face of the record must be such a patent error which in one glance can
be detected without advancing long drawn arguments on either side. Erroneous decision even if
there be any cannot be categorized as an error apparent on the face of record. A judgment
rendered in ignorance of a binding decision of the Court cannot be said to be an error apparent on
the face of record nor, it can be said to be discovery of a new material.32
Where there are two possible views regarding the interpretation or application of law vis-à-vis
the particular facts of a case, taking one view, even if it is erroneous, cannot be said to be an
error apparent on the face of the record, even if a decision or order is erroneous in law or on
merits, it cannot be accepted that it is an error apparent on the face of the record. No hard and
fast rule can be laid down to declare or to point out a certain error to be an error apparent on the
face of the record. The exercise of power under review will depend upon the peculiar facts of
each case.33
There is a real distinction between a mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of
the record. Where error on a substantial point of law stares one in the face, and there could
reasonably be no two options, clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be

29
B. Dhanalakshmi v. M. Shajaha, AIR 2004 Mad 512.
30
Harivishnu v. Ahmad, AIR 1955 SC 233.
31
Venkatachalam v. Bombay Dyeing & Co, AIR 1958 SC 875.
32
National Insurance Co. v. Mohd Sultan Asim, 2005 AIHC 1616 (J&K).
33
Mohd. Ghulam Hassan v. Haji Ghulam Hassan, 1998 SLJ 180.
made out.34 An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points
where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the
face of the record. If the law that was applied is not the law which is applicable is not the law
which applicable it will be an error apparent on the face of the record. 35 If the judgment is
defective on the face of it in that it did not effectively deal with and determine an important issue
on which depends, the title of the plaintiff and the maintainability of the suit this is certainly an
error on the face of the record. 36 So also to decide against a party on matters which do not come
within the issues on which the parties went to trial clearly amounts to an error apparently on the
face of the ground. Review would lie on the mere ground that the Court has not correctly
appreciated the facts of the case.37
Misconception by Court of concession by counsel or attitude evidenced by party would amount
to error on fact of record, it brought to the notice of the court by affidavit in review petition. 38 An
error can be said to be one apparent on the face of the records only when such error is patent and
can be located without any elaborate argument without any scope for any controversy with
regard to such error, which as if, at a glance stares at the face.39
There is no reason to construe the word ‘record’ in a very restricted sense and include within that
term only the document which initiated the proceedings, the pleadings and the adjudication and
exclude the evidence and other parts of the record. The mistake or error is not confined to the
judgment itself, but on any document constituting the records of the suit. “Error apparent on the
face of the record” is an error which can be seen by a mere perusal of the record without
reference to any other matter. Failure to consider a ruling is not such an error. An error apparent
on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record
and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may be
conceivably be two opinions. A decision rendered by a Court contrary to the law laid down by
the Supreme Court is an error apparent on the face of the record is similar to mistake apparent on
the face of the record.40

34
Tungabhadra & C v. Govt., AIR 1964 SC 1372.
35
Shatrunjit v. Md Azamat, AIR 1971 SC 1474.
36
Moran Mar v. Mar Poulose, AIR 1954 SC 526.
37
Lodhi Hotel Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, AIR 2005 NOC 656.
38
S. Krishnamurthy v. Thakkar KG Krishnaswamy (Deceased), 2002 (2) CTC 655.
39
Lakshman Bhowmik v. Satya Narayan Chakraborty, (1955) 2 CHN 490.
40
Rukhmabai v. Ganpatrao, AIR 1932 Nag 177.
3. “Any other sufficient reason”:-

The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted (a decision of seven Judges) to
mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately
previously”, i.e., excusable failure to bring to the notice of the Court new and important matters,
or error apparent on the face of the record.41
Decisions prior to Chhajju’s case are no longer good law, in so far as they are not consistent with
the interpretation given to the words “any other sufficient reason”. This restricted meaning
virtually limits the grounds of review, for practical purposes to the two grounds specified in the
rule. The difficulty felt in the application of the rule has evoked criticisms and explanations:
“whether a particular reason is analogous to either one or other of these two grounds may
obviously lead to very refined if not subtle arguments”. Though the words have to be construed
ejusdem generis, a too narrow interpretation will not be accord with equitable principles. 42
Where it was found that the person who filed the review petition in an appeal was one of the
Legal Representatives of a deceased party and he ought to have been implemented earlier and
since the rejection of his application would restart the entire litigation, the petition was allowed
with a direction to implead the petitioner and hear both parties on their submissions.
The words “any other sufficient reason” have not been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure.
However, the Privy Council in the case of Chhaju Ram v. Neki 43 & Bisheshwar Pratap v. Parath
Nath44, have held that the word “any other sufficient reason” must mean a reason sufficient on
grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule. From these decisions it is clear that
unless any other sufficient reason is analogous to the other two conditions the review cannot be
granted.45

41
Chhajjuram v. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112.
42
Chokalingam v. Chidambaram, 1960 2 MLJ 327.
43
Ibid,41.
44
Bisheshwar Pratap v. Parath Nath, AIR 1934 PC 213.
45
Sumitraben v. Bivyabhanu Singhji, 1999 (1) GLH 673.
Conclusion:-
Review proceedings under CPC are a bit different from the one which we study in Indian
Constitution. In India, there are three tiers Judiciary i.e. District Courts, High Courts and Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India. Review lies in all the three Courts depending on which Court’s Order is
being challenged. Therefore it is necessary to know the nature and scope of all these three words
and also how they are different from each other. It is imperative to know the scope of all these to
exercise the power of reviewability against the impugned order of the respective Court. In this
project I have tried to discuss in elaborative manner the extent and scope of Review under Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 specifically.
After analyzing these general rules to the concept of Review and its nature, it can be concluded
that power to review a decision is very specifically a creation of the law and therefore can in no
terms be considered something as intrinsic on the jurisdiction of the Court. Hence it is implied
duty of the court to exercise this power with the great caution, only after being satisfied as to
existence of any of the grounds mentioned and should not use it as inherent power or as to
entertain any such application for which only remedy available under the law is an appeal.
Bibliography:-
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
 Mulla, Code of Civil Procedure, 14th Edition
 Sarkar, Code of Civil Procedure, 11th Edition