Introduction

Review means to look once again. Section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) deals with the concept of review.

Section 114, CPC

• This section states that subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved—
  (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred.
  
  (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or
  
  (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,
  
  may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.

Object of Review

• The main object of granting a review of judgment is reconsideration of the same matter by the same court and the same judge under certain conditions.
• The power of review is inherited in every court to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.

Application for Review

• A party aggrieved under Section 114 of CPC should be a person directly and immediately affected by the decree or order.
• A person who is neither a party to the proceeding nor a decree or order binds him, cannot apply for review.
• A third party affected or prejudiced by a judgment or order can seek review.

Order 47, CPC

• Rule 1 of Order 47 of CPC deals with the application for review. It states that -

(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.

(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, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review.

Explanation.—The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.

Rejection of Application of Review

• As per Sub rule 1 of Rule 4 of Order 47 of CPC, where it appears to the Court that there is not sufficient ground for a review, it shall reject the application.

Acceptance of Application of Review

• As per Sub rule 2 of Rule 4 of Order 47 of CPC, where the Court is of opinion that the application for review should be granted, it shall grant the same.

Provided that—

(a) no such application shall be granted without previous notice to the opposite party, to enable him to appear and be heard in support of the decree or order, a review of which is applied for; and

(b) no such application shall be granted on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence which the applicant alleges was not within his knowledge or could not be adduced by him when the decree or order was passed or made, without strict proof of such allegation.

Bar on Certain Applications

• As per Rule 9 of Order 47 of CPC, no application to review an order made on an application for a review or a decree or order passed or made on a review shall be entertained.

Case Laws

• In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib (1975), the Supreme Court held that the underlying object of Section 114 of CPC is neither to enable the court to write a second judgment nor to give a second innings to the party who lost the case.
• In Northern India Caterers Ltd. v. Governor of Delhi (1980), the Supreme Court held that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case and the finality of the judgment delivered by the court will not be reconsidered except where a glaring omission or parent mistake has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.