Review under CPC

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provides an avenue for parties aggrieved by a judgement or order of a court to seek its reconsideration through the mechanism of a review. This procedure, though limited in scope, is a crucial remedy in ensuring that justice is served, particularly when a judgement may have been based on a clear error or oversight. 

In this article, we explore the provisions governing the review of judgements under the CPC, the grounds on which it can be sought, the procedural rules, and the principles that guide the review process.

Understanding the Right to Review under CPC

The right to review under the CPC is provided under Section 114, read with Order XLVII. The review mechanism offers an exception to the principle of functus officio, which essentially means that once a judgement is delivered, the matter is concluded and cannot be revisited. However, the review process allows courts to rectify grave errors and ensure that justice is achieved.

While a party who is dissatisfied with a judgement may appeal to a higher court, the review allows for a re-examination of the case in the same court. This remedy is granted under specific conditions and is not intended to provide an opportunity to relitigate the case.

Section 114: The Right to Apply for Review

Under Section 114 of the CPC, a person aggrieved by a decree or order may apply for a review of the judgement passed by the court. The section lays down the conditions under which the review application can be made, as follows:

1. Decrees or Orders from Which an Appeal is Allowed, but No Appeal Has Been Preferred: If a decree or order is appealable but no appeal has been filed, the aggrieved party may apply for a review.
2. Decrees or Orders from Which No Appeal is Allowed:  In cases where no appeal is allowed, an application for review may still be made to the same court that passed the decree or order.
3. Decisions on References from Courts of Small Causes: A decision made on a reference from a Court of Small Causes can also be reviewed.

The application for review must be made to the same court that passed the decree or made the order. The court, upon considering the application, has the discretion to grant or deny the review based on the circumstances of the case.

Object of Review under CPC

The primary objective of allowing a review is to provide a remedy where the court has made an apparent error in its judgement. Such errors may include:

• Misreading of facts
• Misinterpretation of the law
• Overlooking important evidence
• Clerical or typographical errors

The review process is not intended to serve as a second opportunity for the losing party to argue their case or to correct any judicial misjudgement. Instead, it aims to correct glaring mistakes that could lead to an unjust result if left unaddressed. This mechanism helps in preventing a miscarriage of justice.

Grounds for Review

The grounds for applying for a review are laid down in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC, which provides the following grounds:

Discovery of New and Important Matter or Evidence

A party may seek a review if they discover new and important evidence that was not available to them at the time the judgement was passed. The evidence must be such that it could not have been produced despite due diligence at the time of the original proceedings.

Example: If crucial documents or evidence were inadvertently overlooked or were unavailable at the time of the original trial, they can be introduced in the review petition.

Error Apparent on the Face of the Record

A review may be sought if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. This refers to mistakes or oversights that are clear and obvious, without requiring further detailed examination or legal argument.

Example: A miscalculation of numbers in the judgement or a misquotation of a statute may be an error apparent on the face of the record.

Any Other Sufficient Reason

This ground covers other reasons that are analogous to the above two. For example, a total misreading of records or overlooking a critical aspect of the case may also justify a review.

The term “sufficient reason” is open-ended but must be of the same nature as the first two grounds—namely, it must be a clear mistake or oversight that could affect the fairness of the judgement.

Procedure for Review

The procedure for filing a review application is set out in Order XLVII, CPC. The rules ensure that the review process is fair and transparent.

Filing the Application

The application for review must be filed in the same court that passed the decree or order. The application must clearly state the grounds on which the review is being sought, supported by evidence.

The applicant must also attach an affidavit to the review petition, detailing the new evidence or mistake that justifies the review.

Notice to the Opposite Party

Rule 4(2) mandates that notice must be given to the opposite party before the review is granted. This ensures that both parties are heard on the review petition.

This notice allows the opposite party to present their arguments against the review and provides them an opportunity to contest the application.

Hearing by the Same Judge

Rule 5 of Order XLVII states that the application for review should ideally be heard by the same judge or bench that passed the original judgement. The reasoning behind this is that the same judge is in the best position to reconsider the case, as they are already familiar with the facts and circumstances.

If the judge is unavailable for more than six months, any other competent judge may hear the review petition.

Rejection or Acceptance

Rule 4 further provides that the application for review will be rejected if the court finds that there are no sufficient grounds to justify a review.

If the court decides to grant the review, the application will proceed, and the matter will either be re-heard or dealt with as the court deems fit.

Time Limits for Review

An application for review must be filed within 30 days from the date of the judgement or order. However, in cases where the judgement was passed by the High Court, the time limit extends to 60 days.

• Death sentence appeals: The time limit for applying for review in cases of death sentences is also 30 days.
• The court may condone delay in filing the review application if the applicant can provide a reasonable cause for the delay.

Bar on Further Review (Rule 9)

Once a review has been granted, no further review of the same order is permitted. Rule 9 of Order XLVII expressly bars any further applications to review an order or decree that has already been reviewed.

This provision prevents an endless cycle of review petitions, ensuring that once a matter has been thoroughly reconsidered, it reaches finality.

Constitutional Provisions for Review by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India also has the power to review its own judgements under Article 137 of the Indian Constitution. This power ensures that even the highest court in the country can correct any mistake it has made in its judgements. This review is a safeguard to ensure that the law is correctly applied, and justice is not denied due to judicial errors.

Landmark Case Laws on Review

1. Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib (1975): The Supreme Court held that the review process is not meant to provide a second innings for the losing party. The objective of Section 114 is not to re-hear the case but to correct clear and obvious errors that are apparent on the face of the record.
2. Northern India Caterers Ltd. v. Governor of Delhi (1980): The Supreme Court emphasised that review proceedings are not to be equated with an appeal. A judgement will not be reviewed merely because the losing party thinks it was wrongly decided. Only glaring omissions or errors of law justify review.

Conclusion

The review process under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is a crucial remedy designed to prevent miscarriages of justice due to clerical errors, misinterpretation of facts, or overlooked evidence. It allows courts to correct their judgements where a clear error has been made, ensuring fairness and justice in civil proceedings.

However, the review is not an appeal mechanism and cannot be used to re-litigate the case. The process is strictly regulated to prevent abuse and ensure that it is only used in exceptional circumstances. By maintaining a clear set of guidelines and limitations, the CPC ensures that the review process serves its purpose without undermining the principle of finality in litigation.