PROVISION FOR REVIEW AND REVISION UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Authored By Aprajita Priyadarshini
Keywords: Revision, Rrview, Code of civil procedure, Law.
The Code of Civil Procedure provides certain specific provisions with regards to protecting the interests of the aggrieved parties in matters where they do not have the right to appeal to the High Court, even when they want to. This is known as the Review and the Revisional Jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in specific matters for the interests of the parties and with the aim to secure justice.
The term “review” means to re-check or re-examine. Therefore, in terms of law, review means to re-examine the decision passed by the Court. The concept of Review has been dealt under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which states that the Court has the power to review its judgment under certain specified circumstances, which are as follows:
· Discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which is either relevant or of such character that if it had been given it might possibly have altered the judgment,
· Mistake or error in the judgment,
· Other sufficient reason.
One of the most important aspect of Review as provided under Section 114 is that the judgment is reviewed by the same Court and the same Judge(s), unlike Revision or Reference. Also, the power of reviewing the decision is exercised by the Court only if it is of the opinion that the judgment has affected the interest of the parties involved and injustice has been done. In simple terms, exercising the power of review is the discretion of the Court in situations where it is of the opinion that the decision given has adversely affected the interest of the party. It is necessary to understand that the Review petition can be made only when there seems to be an error on face of record of the judgment and not otherwise. Any of the three essential conditions need to be fulfilled in order to have a lawful review petition. This was pointed out in the case of Usha Ranee Banik v. Hardas, whereby the Hon’ble Court held that the power of review is applicable only when the mistake is apparent on face of record, which varies from case to case and can be decided only upon the particular facts of the case.
The petition for Reviewing the decision is filed by the aggrieved party and thereafter, the Court decides on taking the matter or not. One of the most recent example of review petition being filed by the aggrieved parties was in the landmark judgment of Indian Young Lawyers Association and Others vs. The State of Kerala, popularly known as the Sabrimala Temple case, the petition being allowed on the grounds of other sufficient reason, whereby the Supreme Court stayed the order passed in 2018 and kept the review petitions on hold, keeping in mind the various other issues which can be affected by one particular judgment.
Lastly, the limitation period for filing a review petition is of 30 days in any Court except the Supreme Court and any order of the Court which rejects the review application is not appeal-able, but in case of an order granting application for review, it is appeal-able in the Court higher in the hierarchy.
The Code of Civil Procedure provides Revisional jurisdiction to the High Courts under Section 115, whereby the High Courts have the power to revise the orders given by the Courts sub-ordinate to that High Court. This power is exercised by the High Courts in cases where no appeal lies and the High Court is of the opinion that the subordinate Court has misused its powers in either of the following ways:
· The sub-ordinate Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested upon it,
· The sub-ordinate Court has not exercised a jurisdiction vested upon it, or
· The sub-ordinate Court acted in its jurisdiction with illegality or material irregularity.
Therefore, the High Courts have the power of revisional jurisdiction when it is of the opinion that there has been a jurisdictional error on part of the sub-ordinate Court.
The basic aim behind Section 115 is to ensure that the sub-ordinate courts do not misuse their powers arbitrarily or capriciously and the High Courts always have a check on the activities of the sub-ordinate Courts. This also signifies that the High Court in its true sense is considered to be the Court of Records, which keep a record on all the cases of the sub-ordinate courts and ensure the delivery of justice. The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court within 90 days from the passing of the decree or order for which revision is being sought. Also, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only when there is no right to appeal in the particular case. In the case of Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillion, Supreme Court held that, when any other remedy is available, the court may not exercise its revisional jurisdiction.
The revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Section 115 is not similar to that of the power of issuing writs under Article 226 as the latter is much wider in scope as compared to the former. The power under Section 115 can be exercised only in matters of jurisdictional error by the Courts, but this is not the case under Article 226 which allows the High Court to look into matters beyond the jurisdictional error of the sub-ordinate courts.
To conclude, the power of review is exercised by the same Court and the same Judge(s) but in case of revision, the matter is taken up by the Court higher to the Court who has passed the order or decree. Further, the review petition has to be filed by the aggrieved party for the Court to review the matter but the High Court has the suo moto power to take up any case decided by the sub-ordinate court for revising the same.
The power to appeal in revisional jurisdiction is not available to the parties, but for an order granting the review petition, the parties have the right to appeal. Lastly, the review application can be filed even if the parties have the right to appeal in the higher Court, but revision is done only in cases where there has been provided no right to appeal to the High Court.
Therefore, both the provisions have their own aspects which make them differ from each other and their applicability also differs. One mist not confuses the two concepts to be the same or one. It is impertinent to note that one cannot file for a review petition in cases where revision is the right remedy and vice-versa. The right way to get justice is to understand the right way of implementation of the provisions laid down for the protection and welfare of its people.
Usha Ranee Banik v. Hardas, AIR 2005 Gau. 1. Indian Young Lawyers Association and Others vs. The State of Kerala, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 2006. Major. S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillion, 1964 AIR 497.