CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

Section 114 - Review

ANNOTATION

Reference/Relevance within Statute

Order 47 (Review)

Case Cited

1. S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0797/1993: 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 595; Green View Tea and Industries v. Collector, Golaghat,
Assam MANU/SC/0140/2004: AIR2004SC1738.

2. Sree Narayana Dharma Shangom Trust v. Swami Prakasanand MANU/KE/0052/1996: AIR1996Ker203.

3. Sree Narayana Dharma Shangom Trust v. Swami Prakasanand MANU/KE/0052/1996: AIR1996Ker203; Hari Singh v. S. Seth
MANU/DE/0400/1995 : AIR1996Delhi21.

4. Chandmall Chopra v. State of West Bengal MANU/WB/0019/1986: AIR1986Cal111; A. T. Sharma v. A. P. Sharma AIR 1979 SC 1047.

5. Smt. Bidya Devi v. Commissioner of Income Tax MANU/WB/0077/2003: AIR2004Cal63.

6. T. Krishnappa v. H. Lingappa MANU/WB/0077/2003: AIR1982Kant58.

7. Madan Lal Jain v. Union of India MANU/DE/2137/2002: 103(2003)DLT416.

8. Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor, Delhi MANU/SC/0445/1979: AIR 1980 SC 674.

9. Chandrakant Jaganath v. Sripad Vaikunth Naik MANU/MH/0280/1989: AIR1989Bom91.

10. The National Small Industries Corporation Limited v. M/s Industrial Textiles Products (P) Limited MANU/DE/0628/2001: 2001(60)DRJ144.

11. Mohd. Sayeed v. Chiranji Lal, MANU/DE/0410/1983: AIR 1984 Del 104.

12. Sir Hari Sankar v. Anath Nath Mitter MANU/FE/0004/1949 : AIR 1949 FC 106; Smt. Shakuntala Bai Krishna Bhoyar v. State of Maharashtra
MANU/MH/0263/1986: AIR1986Bom308.

13. Surinder Singh v. Sohan Singh MANU/DE/0176/1985 : AIR1986Delhi293.

14. Ishwar Dutt v. Gyan Chand MANU/RH/0270/1998: AIR1998Raj302.

Page 541

15. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of Andh. Pradesh MANU/SC/0217/1963: AIR 1964 SC 1372; Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, 1997 SAR
(Civil) SC 889; Govind Poojara v. Mohan Lal MANU/RH/0243/1998 : AIR1998Raj213; Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose
Athanasius, MANU/WB/0178/1954 : AIR 1954 SC 526; Labh Singh v. Bant Singh MANU/PH/0210/1999 : AIR1999P&H189.

16. Smt. Meera Bhanja v. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, MANU/SC/0098/1995 : AIR 1995 SC 455; Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/1350/1992 : AIR 1964 SC 1372.

17. Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, 1997 SAR (Civil) SC 889; Govind Poojara v. Mohan Lal MANU/RH/0243/1998 : AIR1998Raj213; Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526; Labh Singh v. Bant Singh AIR1999P&H189.

18. Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque MANU/SC/0095/1954 : AIR 1955 SC 233.

19. Smt. Bidya Devi v. Commissioner of Income Tax MANU/WB/0077/2003 : AIR2004Cal63.

20. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0217/1963 : AIR 1964 SC 1372.

21. Kapoor Chand v. Ganesh Datt, MANU/SC/0154/1993 : AIR 1993 SC 1145.

22. U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Ravi Kumar Anand, MANU/SC/2010/1995 : AIR 1995 SC 2076

23. Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust v. Swami Prakasanada, MANU/SC/1267/1997 : 1997 (6) SCC 78; Nirbhay Singh v. State of
Rajasthan MANU/RH/0036/2002 : AIR2002Raj28.

24. Rajamouli v. A.V.K.N. Swamy MANU/SC/0341/2001 : AIR 2001 SC 2316.

25. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of Andh. Pradesh MANU/SC/0217/1963 : AIR 1964 SC 1372.

26. Calcutta Properties Limited v. S.N. Chakorborty MANU/WB/0026/1988 : AIR1988Cal131; Shakuntala Bai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986
Bom 30.

27. Lokesh Dhawan v. Union of India MANU/DE/0772/2003 : AIR2004Delhi26; Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji
MANU/SC/0433/1970 : AIR 1970 SC 1273; Dr. (Smt. ) Kunkesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.)
MANU/SC/0104/1987 : AIR 1987 SC 2186; Kewal Chand Mimani (D) By LRs. v. S.K. Sen MANU/SC/0394/2001 : AIR 2001 SC 2569.

28. Danomal v. Union of India MANU/MH/0143/1967 : AIR 1967 Bom 355; Kumaran Vaidyar v. K.S. Venkiteswarn MANU/KE/0007/1992 :
AIR1992Ker26.

29. Rekha Mukherjee v. Aashish Kumar Das MANU/WB/0531/2004 : AIR2005Cal74.

30. Hari Singh v. S. Seth MANU/DE/0400/1995 : AIR1996Delhi21.

SYNOPSIS
 1. Object ............................................
542
2. Scope ............................................
543
3. Decision erroneous in law ......... 544
4. Review, whether an appeal in disguise
........................................ 544
5. Error apparent on the face of the
record ...........................................
545
6. Dismissal of SLP ......................... 545
7. Relevant date for filing of review
application .................................... 546
8. Court's inherent power of review .. 546
9. Procedure on moving application of
review ...........................................
546

1. Object.

The principle behind this section is that an act of Court should prejudice none (S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka; Green View Tea and Industries
v. Collector, Golaghat, Assam).1 It is the duty of the Court to rectify, revise and re-call its Orders as and when 

Page 542

it is brought to its notice that certain of its Orders were passed on a wrong or mistaken assumption of facts and that implementation of those
Orders would have serious consequences.

2. Scope.

Section 114 of the Code cannot be read in isolation. It must be read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code. This section entitles a person to apply
for a review against every Judgment and decree and Order irrespective of the fact if an appeal has been provided against the said decree and
Order. The only condition is where an appeal has been filed against the decree or Order a review petition is not maintainable. Besides a decree
and Order, a review can be preferred against a reference from a Court of small cause. In other words, what is sought to be emphasized is that
only if an appeal is provided by the Code and such an appeal is filed, could it be said that the power of review cannot be exercised (Sree
Narayana Dharma Shangom Trust v. Swami Prakasanand).2

In a sense, Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code have imported the principle of election, leaving it to the litigant to elect his remedy
by either seeking a review of the Judgment or Order or by appeal against the decree or Order, but not permitting him to pursue both the
remedies simultaneously. The approach to the two fora is mutually exclusive in the scheme of things. "Where either of two alternative tribunals
are open to a litigant, each having jurisdiction over the matters in dispute, and he resorts for his remedy to one of such tribunals in preference
to the other, he is precluded, as against his opponent, from any subsequent recourse to the latter, at least at point at which he has taken
Judgment in the first (Sree Narayana Dharma Shangom Trust v. Swami Prakasanand; Hari Singh v. S. Seth).3

The power of review is to be exercised very sparingly. This Court in its jurisdiction has undoubtedly got the power to review its Judgment, but
there are limits to the exercise of such power. Such power may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That
would be the province of a Court of Appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with Appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court
to correct all manner of errors committed by the Trial Court (Chandmall Chopra v. State of West Bengal; A. T. Sharma v. A. P. Sharma).4

The principles enunciated under the Code of Civil Procedure in Section 114 read with Order 47 speak of error apparent on the face of the
record (Smt. Bidya Devi v. Commissioner of Income Tax).5 The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be
produced by him at the time when the Order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is
found: it may also be exercised by any analogous ground (T. Krishnappa v. H. Lingappa).6 Thus, a decision can be reviewed only if some error
apparent on the face of record is pointed out or the party seeking review is able to produce some document which was not produced earlier
and is able to show that such a document could not be produced in spite of due diligence exercised on his part (Madan Lal Jain v. Union of
India).7

However, a Party is not entitled to seek a review of Judgment delivered by a Court merely for the purpose of a re-hearing and a fresh decision
of the case. The normal principle is that a Judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that 

Page 543

principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so (Northern India Caterers v.
Lt. Governor, Delhi).8

A failure to consider precedent bearing upon the case is not a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, unless it can be shown
that failure to bring it to notice of the Court was excusable (Chandrakant Jaganath v. Sripad Vaikunth Naik).9

Where a compromise is either refused or allowed, this cannot be assailed in Review and the aggrieved party should question and challenged it
only once a Judgment is pronounced. Secondly, it is an abuse of the judicial process to file a Review where an Order has been passed ex parte
even if another view, unadvocated because of the absence of the party, is possible (The National Small Industries Corporation Limited v. M/s
Industrial Textiles Products (P) Limited).10

Where three connected cases are decided by one Judgment but review is sought for only one case, the Court cannot review the Judgment to
the extent it pertains exclusively to other two cases (Mohd. Sayeed v. Chiranji Lal).11

3. Decisions Erroneous in law-Whether a ground for review.

A decision where the Court has taken a view on a point of law which is erroneous is quite different from a case where specific provision of law
having bearing on the controversy between the parties has not been considered at all. The former is known as a decision erroneous in law and
the later would be an error apparent on the face of the record.

A decision erroneous in law is certainly no ground for Ordering review. An error apparent on the face of the record would be open to the review
jurisdiction of the Court.

Thus, If the Court has decided a point and decided it erroneously, the error could not be one apparent on the face of record or even analogous
to it, hence would not be open to review. 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 review (Sir Hari Sankar v. Anath Nath Mitter; Smt. Shakuntala Bai Krishna Bhoyar v. State of
Maharashtra).12

It is possible that the provision of law escaped the attention of the Court because it was not within the knowledge of counsel for the parties or
for that matter the Court itself. Therefore when it is brought to the notice of the Court that there was a specific provision of law interdiction an
Appellate or revisional Court to entertain the plea of want of pecuniary jurisdiction and the provision does effect the merits of the earlier
decision, the Court would be failing in its duty if it refuses to rectify the error on purely technical grounds (Surinder Singh v. Sohan Singh).13

4. Review, whether an appeal in a disguise.

The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, Code of Civil
Procedure. The scope for exercise of power by this Court while dealing with and deciding a review petition is very limited confined within the
four-corners of the statute as referred to above (Ishwar Dutt v. Gyan Chand).14 The power under this section cannot be exercised as an appeal
in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but 

Page 544

lies only for patent error. Thus, it clearly emerges in a review petition re-appraisal of the evidence on the record for finding out the error would
amount to exercise of Appellate jurisdiction, which is not permissible by the statute (Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of Andh. Pradesh;
Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi; Govind Poojara v. Mohan Lal; Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius; Labh Singh v.
Bant Singh).15

5. Error apparent on the face of record.

The Judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error on the face of the record. An error on the face of record means
an error which strikes one on mere, looking at record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may
conceivably be two opinions (Smt. Meera Bhanja v. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary; Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra
Pradesh).16 When error is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, it is an erroneous decision and is not an error
apparent on the face of the record. Thus, is not permissible to be reheard and corrected in a review petition (Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi;
Govind Poojara v. Mohan Lal; Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius; Labh Singh v. Bant Singh).17

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, it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case (Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque).18 Broadly speaking
an error apparent on the face of the record envisages discovery of new and important matter of evidence, which after exercise of due diligence
was either not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the Judgment was delivered or on
account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reasons on which review can be asked for (Smt.
Bidya Devi v. Commissioner of Income Tax).19

Where error of a substantial point of law stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions, a clear case of error apparent
on the face of the record would be made out (Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh).20

6. Dismissal of a SLP.

A review petition should not be rejected on the ground that special leave petition is filed (Kapoor Chand v. Ganesh Datt).21 But once the
special leave petition has been dismissed by the Supreme Court against the Order of High Court, the High Court has no jurisdiction to review
its own Order (U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Ravi Kumar Anand).22 This view of the Supreme Court underwent change in the later
Judgments, wherein it has been held that as far as the rejection of the special leave is concerned, it is final whether it has been disposed of by
a speaking or non-speaking Order in limine or on contesting and no second special leave petition will lie. Secondly rejection of such a special
leave to appeal will not attract the applicability of doctrine of merger and as such the High Court will have a jurisdiction to review the Order
against which the S.L.P. has been rejected by the Apex Court (Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust v. Swami Prakasanada; Nirbhay Singh v.
State of Rajasthan).23

Page 545

Further the dismissal of the special leave petition against the main Judgment of the High Court would not constitute res judicata when a
special leave petition is filed against the Order passed in the review petition provided the review petition was filed prior to filing of special leave
petition against the main Judgment of the High Court. The position would be different where after dismissal of the special leave petition
against the main Judgment a party files a review petition after a long delay on the ground that the party was prosecuting remedy by way of
special leave petition. In such a situation the filing of review would be an abuse of the process of the law (Rajamouli v. A.V.K.N. Swamy).24

7. Relevant date for filing review application.

The crucial date for determining whether or not the terms of Order XLVII. Rule 1(1) are satisfied is the date when the application for review is
filed. If on that date no appeal has been filed it is competent for the Court hearing the petition for review to dispose of the application on the
merits notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, subject only to this, that if before the application for review is finally decided the appeal
itself has been disposed of, the jurisdiction of the Court hearing the review petition would come to an end (Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v.
Govt. of Andh. Pradesh).25

8. Court's Inherent power of review.

The power to review must be conferred on it by statute, expressly or by necessary implication. A distinction must be drawn between the
inherent powers of Courts or tribunals on the one hand and those of quasi-judicial authorities. While, tribunals and Courts have inherent
powers, quasi-judicial authorities have only those powers which are conferred by statute.

Even if the provisions of Section 151 of the Code are construed to have preserved inherent power of review apart from and dehors the
provisions of Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, they must be so construed as to require notice to the parties or the party affected
before such power can be exercised, in accordance with the principle of natural justice which is a fundamental principle of our judicial
procedure (Calcutta Properties Limited v. S.N. Chakorborty; Shakuntala Bai v. State of Maharashtra).26

Quasi-judicial authorities do not have any power to review unless specifically conferred by statute (Lokesh Dhawan v. Union of India; Patel
Narshi Thakershi v. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji; Dr. (Smt.) Kunkesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur
 (U.P.); Kewal Chand Mimani (D) By LRs. v. S.K. Sen).27 Thus, it is clear that insofar as a quasi-judicial authority like Institute of Charted
Accountants is concerned, it has no inherent power to review its own decision.

9. Procedure on moving application for review.

It is abundantly clear that the power to review arises only when an application by a person aggrieved in that respect, has been made. The Civil
Procedure Code does not confer on Courts any general power of reviewing its decision suo motu (Danomal v. Union of India; Kumaran Vaidyar
v. K.S. Venkiteswarn).28 The application has to be made to the Court which passed the decree or Order or reference which is required to be
reviewed.

Page 546

On the presentation of a review application, a rule is issued at the first stage and then the rule is heard at the second stage. Once the review is
rejected, the decree against which the review was preferred continues to survive. An appeal against such decree can very well be maintained
and there would be no confusion or conflict if such appeal is filed after the review is rejected. Once the review is allowed, the procedure for
review reaches the third stage. This is done under Rule 4, Order 47, Code of Civil Procedure. Then the case is re-heard on merit under Rule 8.
Upon such hearing on merit, it may result in a repetition of the former decree or Order or in some variation of it. Though the result may be
same whether the rule is ultimately discharged at the third stage or on re-hearing the original decree is repeated, but in law, there is a
material difference. In the latter case, the matter having been reopened, there is a fresh decree. In the former case, the parties are relegated
and still rest on the old decree. This distinction is of fundamental importance (Rekha Mukherjee v. Aashish Kumar Das).29

Before the making of an application for review, an appeal from the Judgment sought to be reviewed has already been filed and is pending,
then the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the review application, secondly where the application for review is first made and thereafter an
appeal is preferred, the review application can be disposed of provided the Appellate Court has not disposed of the appeal before the review
application is taken up for disposal (Hari Singh v. S. Seth).30

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

By Anupam Srivastava
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Disclaimer :
The views and comments expressed in the present category are those of the Author. These should not be taken to reflect the views of the organisation. Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
expressly disclaims all responsibility for any loss, injury, liability or damage of any kind resulting from and arising out of, or any way related to the Content.