Power and duty of the High Court

The High has consultative jurisdiction in this context. When reference is

sought from the High Court and while dealing it the High Court is not
bound to decide only the question of law in doubt. As held in the case
of S.K. Roy v. Board of Revenue, the High Court can consider the new
aspects of law also if any new aspect arises.

To answer the question for which reference is sought totally upon the
discretion of the High Court as discussed under Order 46 of the Code.
The High Court may answer the question and send the case back to the
referring court to dispose of it in accordance with the law. It is also upon
the discretion of the High Court to refuse to answer the question and it
has even power to quash it.

Effects of Reference
In the case of L.S Sherlekar v. D.L. Agarwal, it was held that when the
reference is sought from the High Court and the decree is confirmed if
the High Court answers the question in favour of the plaintiff. If the
answer of the High Court is against him, the suit is dismissed.

Rule 3 of Order 46 states the provision that after hearing the parties if
the High Court desires, it shall decide the referred points and transmits a
copy of its judgement to the subordinate court which shall dispose of the
case in reference to said decisions.

REVIEW
Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code defines the provision of review. In
case of review, the party who is not happy or aggrieved with the order of
the court can file an application for review in the same court which has
passed the decree. This provision has been made so as to facilitate the
court to review their own decree or judgement and rectify the same in
case any error has been made while passing the judgement.

It was held in case of Ram Baksh v. Rajeshwari Kunwar, AIR 1948 AII
213 that the option of review is still there even if the appeal has been
dismissed on any ground.

Order 47 of the CPC defines the procedure to be followed in case of

review. In the following situation, the application for review can be filed
by the parties:

1. The decree or judgement is appealable however, no appeal has

been preferred under the law.
2. In case of no provision for appeal has been mentioned in the law
for certain decree or judgement.
3. The Court of Small Causes has passed the decision.
The law defines certain grounds on which application for review can be
filed:

1. Where there are new discoveries of the facts, which were not in
knowledge or could not produce at the time of passing of decree
due to ignorance.
2. In case, the error is found on the face of the record and does not
require the argument of the entire case again. These errors are
not related to wrong decisions made by the court.
3. Any other case, in which case the delusion of the court can be
considered as sufficient ground.
The Apex court in the case of S. Nagraj & Ors. V. State of Karnataka &
Anr., 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595 held that any other sufficient ground has
an expanded meaning. An order passed in case of misinterpretation of
the true facts can be considered as sufficient ground.
Time limit: Article 124 of Limitation Act provided that once the decree
or order is passed, parties shall file the application within 30 days from
the date of passing such decree. The decree or order which is passed
after review shall be final and binding to the parties. It is important to
note that the entertaining the application filed by parties for review is at
the discretion of the court. Court can either entertain or reject the
application. In case, the court does not find any sufficient ground to
entertain an application, it can reject the same.

As defined in the law, even the Supreme Court can review its
judgement under Article 137 of the constitution of India.

OBJECT

Any human being can make a mistake or error and so do the judges. So,
the procedure of Review has been embedded in the legal system to
correct the mistakes and prevent any miscarriage of justice as held in the
case of S.Nagraj v. State of Karnataka. The review application is not
an appeal or revision made to the superior court, but it is a request to
recall and reconsider the decision made before the same court.

Circumstances when a review petition is maintainable

A review petition is maintainable before the court under the following

circumstances:

When no appeal lies in the case

According to section 114 of the code, when no appeal lies from an order
or a decree then it can be reviewed by the Court. In the case of Ganeshi
Lal v. Seth Mool Chand, it was held that taking into consideration sub-
clause(c) of Section 114, the application of review against a decree
passed by a Small Causes Court is eligible.
Even if an appeal is dismissed on the ground of being incompetent or
time-barred, the party can go for review procedure as held in the case
of Ram Baksh v. Rajeshwari Kunwar.

When appeal lies in a case but not preferred

When the provision of appeal is available but it is not preferred by the
aggrieved party then also a review petition is maintainable. As held in
the case of Sitaramasastry v. Sunderamma an application for review
can be presented before the court only till no appeal is preferred against
that order. The court cannot entertain an application for review when an
appeal is already instituted before making an application for review.

Reference from Small Causes Court

The court may review the judgement on a reference made by the Small
Causes Court.

Grounds of Review

There are certain grounds laid down under Rule 1 of Order 47 on which
an application made for the review of a judgement is maintainable:

 On the discovery of new and important matter or evidence

A court can review its judgement when some new and important matter
or evidence is discovered by the applicant which couldn’t be produced
or was not available at the time of passing the decree.

 When the mistakes or errors are apparent on the face of the

record
When there is an apparent error on the face of record then the court may
review its judgement or decree. As decided in the case of Karutha
Kritya v. R. Ramalinga Raju, the error includes an error of fact as well
as an error of law.

 Other sufficient reason

The last ground for review is any sufficient reason. Any sufficient
ground considered for review by the court comes under this ground. It
could be any reason which the court feels sufficient to review its
judgement in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

In the case of Bank of Bihar v. Mahabir Lal, the Supreme Court laid
down certain reasons which can be considered as a sufficient reason for
review such as- when there has been any misapprehension of the true
state of circumstances, or when the party has not been given fair chance
to produce any statement or evidence, or no notice was sent to the party,
or the court has failed to consider a material fact or evidence, or the
court has omitted any statutory provisions.

The limitation period for Review

The limitation period for filing an application for review as given
under Article 124 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is thirty days for a court
other than the Supreme Court from the date of decree or order.

Is the power to review an inherent power?

It is a well-settled matter that the power to review is not an inherent

power. It is required to be either expressly conferred by law or by
necessary implications.

Inherent power to review of a Court of plenary jurisdiction