Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Scope of Review Application - Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, not re-hearing the case or substituting a fresh decision. It cannot be used as an appeal or to re-argue issues. The grounds for review are restricted to mistakes or errors that are evident without requiring detailed re-examination. ["2024 0 Supreme(Del) 154"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 781"], ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 1438"], ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2671"]
When Review Should Be Allowed - Review application should be allowed only when there is a clear mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, such as clerical errors, patent mistakes, or misapprehensions that require correction without re-assessment of the merits. It is not permissible for erroneous decisions to be reheard and corrected under the guise of review. ["2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2657"], ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2671"]
Limitations and Principles - The review process is not an appeal and must strictly adhere to the scope defined by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. It cannot be used to substitute the original decision based on merits or to correct errors that are not apparent on the record. The courts have emphasized that review is a limited remedy and should not be misused as a second chance to re-argue cases. ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 867"], ["2023 0 Supreme(AP) 260"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 781"]
Instances When Review is Not Permissible - When the alleged mistake involves a matter requiring re-argument or re-hearing, or when the review application is based on grounds outside the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC (e.g., mistaken judgment, new evidence, or merits), it should be rejected. Courts have also rejected review applications that seek to correct errors of law or fact that are not apparent on the face of the record. ["2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 850"], ["
Kewal Krishan VS Sham Lal - Current Civil Cases
"], ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2671"]Review applications in CPC should be allowed only when there is an obvious and manifest error on the face of the record that requires correction without re-assessment of the case's merits. They are not substitutes for appeals or rehearings and cannot be used to correct errors involving merits, new evidence, or legal misapprehensions. Courts consistently emphasize the limited scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, advocating caution against misuse of the process for re-arguments or substantive corrections.
In the realm of in India, parties often seek to revisit court decisions through a under of the (CPC). But when should a in CPC be allowed? This question arises frequently when litigants believe a judgment contains flaws. However, courts exercise this power cautiously, confining it to narrow grounds to prevent it from becoming an appeal in disguise.
This blog post explores the precise conditions under which review petitions are granted, drawing from authoritative judgments. It highlights key principles, limitations, and practical insights. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
A allows a court to reconsider its own or . As established in key rulings, it is not an avenue for re-hearing the case or substituting a different opinion2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641 2022 7 Supreme 428. Instead, it targets specific defects.
The primary grounds for allowing a review are:- 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641 2022 7 Supreme 428.- not available despite at the original hearing 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641 2022 7 Supreme 428.
Courts emphasize that the error must be self-evident, detectable by mere perusal of the record, without elaborate reasoning 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1557. For instance, clerical mistakes or obvious oversights qualify, but subtle legal disagreements do not.
Review is permissible when a exists 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641 2022 7 Supreme 428. The has clarified: errors which are not self-evident and require reasoning cannot be considered errors apparent on the face of the record 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641.
In one case, the court noted: Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. ... error 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 2020 0 Supreme(MP) 1218.
This principle ensures reviews correct glaring issues, like miscalculations or overlooked documents evident from the file.
Another ground is the discovery of new and important evidence that, despite , was unavailable earlier 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641 2022 7 Supreme 428. explicitly covers: from the which, after the exercise of was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the was passed or made 2013 0 Supreme(Gau) 187.
This evidence must potentially change the outcome significantly. Mere afterthoughts or overlooked points do not suffice.
is strictly limited. Courts repeatedly hold that it cannot be used to re-argue merits, re-open settled issues, or seek re-hearing2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641 2022 7 Supreme 428.
In a recruitment dispute, review was allowed due to an apparent error in medical fitness assessment, directing a , underscoring the 'possibility' of error 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 2319. Conversely, challenging eligibility criteria via review failed when grounds merely questioned original reasons 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 25 2013 0 Supreme(Gau) 187.
Several judgments reinforce these boundaries:
These cases illustrate courts' caution: The review process is a serious, limited judicial exercise aimed at correcting patent errors 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641 2022 7 Supreme 428.
To navigate review applications effectively:- File Only on Strong Grounds: Identify clear patent errors or truly new evidence. Avoid framing as disagreements.- Act Promptly: Address delays with cogent explanations.- Support with Record: Point to specific record portions showing the error.- Avoid Misuse: Courts dismiss petitions seeking merit re-examination, potentially attracting costs.
Judges should similarly restrict to defined scope, preventing abuse.
Generally, a under CPC should be allowed only for patent mistakes apparent on the record or genuinely new, important evidence unavailable despite diligence. It is not for appeals, re-arguments, or second chances on merits2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641 2022 7 Supreme 428.
By adhering to these principles, the review mechanism upholds judicial finality while correcting undeniable flaws. For litigants, understanding these limits can save time and resources—opt for appeals where appropriate.
Disclaimer: Legal outcomes vary by facts and jurisdiction. This overview draws from precedents like 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641, 2022 7 Supreme 428, and others; seek professional advice tailored to your situation.
Word count: Approximately 1050
#CPCReview, #Order47Rule1, #LegalReview
This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] moved on behalf of the petitioners seeking exemption of filing certified copies of Annexures. 2.Heard. 3.The same is allowed. ... Aggrieved thereof, evidently an application was filed on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC seeking review of order date....
The Tribunal referring to Section 152 of CPC rejected the application, observing that the correction in the judgment and decree can be made only as per Section 152 of the CPC and not by filing any review application and had observed that there was no error or mistake made by the Tribunal while passing ... The learned Tribunal observed that the correction in the judgment and award could be made only as per....
Application for review of judgment.—(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved— (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or ... The application allowed by the trial Court does not whisper about which part of the written statement required explanation by filing....
For the reasons stated in the application, coupled with submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the application is allowed and delay of 147 days in filing the Review Petition is condoned. Disposed of. ... An application for review is more restricted than that of an appeal and the Court of review has limited jurisdiction as to the definite limit mentioned in Or....
Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus: “1. Application for review of judgment. ... In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. ... (KAT)No.343 of 2025 filed this review....
The grounds available for filing a review application against a judgment have been set out in Order XLVII of the CPC in the following words: “1. ... Application for review of judgment: (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved: (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. ... Application for review#H....
Application for review of judgment -(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or p align ... The petitioner has treated this review application as an appeal by touching the merit of the case. There is no error apparent on the....
The application is allowed. Order on Civil Misc. Review Application: 1. ... Such a right cannot be allowed to him. Barlier the review application was rejected by the trial court then the petitioner filed an infructuous revision, thereafter, he filed a writ petition and lastly be filed the instant second review application.” ... The #....
The grounds raised in the review application are good grounds for the appeal but not grounds for review under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the review application is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. ... “ORDER XLVII - REVIEW Application for review#HL_....
This is an application filed under section 151 CPC for placing on record replication on behalf of the petitioner to the reply filed by the respondent No.2. 3. On the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. ... By way of present application filed under Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 CPC the applicant-petitioner prays for review of the judgme....
(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. Trite it is that an application for Review lies when: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. But error 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 the points where there ma....
By now it is well-settled that an application for review must be decided within the parameters as indicated under Order-XLVII CPC; an application for review cannot be converted into an appeal in disguise. Order dated 05.12.2012 records objection of the petitioner that the review application has been filed to delay disposal of the main matter. The procedure adopted in the civil courts is that normally when an application is filed it is assigned its number and in routine manner....
Review application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Therefore, the review application will have to be allowed. The qualification would go back to the original decision made.
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) By a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from 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 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,....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
