What is a Review?

A **review** is a legal remedy through which a party requests the **same court** that passed a judgment, decree, or order to re-examine its own decision and correct any errors. Unlike an appeal, where a higher court reviews the decision of a lower court, a review is directed to the very court that made the decision, asking it to take a second look at its own work. Review is an exceptional remedy, available only in limited circumstances — it is not meant to be a rehearing or a substitute for an appeal.

In everyday terms, a review is like telling the judge: "You may have made a mistake in your own order — please look at it again." It is a narrow remedy, used sparingly, because courts operate on the principle that once a decision is made, it should not be easily disturbed. Review exists to correct genuine errors, not to allow a dissatisfied party to re-argue their entire case.

Legal Framework

Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Order 47 governs the review of judgments in civil courts.

Rule 1 — Grounds for Review

Any person aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but no appeal has been preferred, or from which no appeal is allowed, may apply for a review of judgment on the following grounds:

**(a) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence** — The applicant has discovered new evidence that, despite due diligence, was not within their knowledge or could not be produced at the time the decree was passed.

**(b) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record** — There is an obvious error in the judgment that is self-evident and does not require elaborate reasoning to detect. This includes errors of law, computational mistakes, or overlooking a binding precedent.

**(c) Any other sufficient reason** — A residuary ground, interpreted narrowly by courts. It must be analogous in nature and gravity to the first two grounds and must demonstrate that a manifest injustice has occurred.

Rule 2 — Application to Courts Other Than the Supreme Court

This rule is now largely superseded by the Supreme Court Rules for review petitions in that court.

Rule 4 — Application for Review by Indigent Person

A person who is unable to pay court fees may apply for review as an indigent person, subject to the court's satisfaction.

Rule 5 — No Second Review

No application to review a judgment shall be entertained in a review of an order made on a previous application for review. In other words, there can be no **review of a review** — the remedy is available only once.

Rule 7 — Rejection Without Hearing

If the court considers that the application for review does not disclose sufficient grounds, it may reject the application without hearing the other side. An order rejecting a review application is not appealable but may be challenged by way of a Special Leave Petition.

Rule 9 — Bar of Certain Applications

No application for review shall lie from a decree or order passed on an earlier application for review, or from an order of rejection of a review application.

Article 137 of the Constitution of India

Article 137 grants the **Supreme Court** the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or rules made under Article 145. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, prescribe the procedure for review petitions before the Supreme Court.

Review petitions in the Supreme Court are ordinarily heard **in chambers** (without oral hearing) by the same bench that delivered the judgment. Only in rare cases does the Supreme Court allow an open-court hearing of a review petition.

Grounds for Review — Explained

1. New and Important Evidence

The applicant must show:

- The evidence is **new** — it was not available at the time of the original hearing.

- Despite exercising **due diligence**, the applicant could not have obtained it earlier.

- The evidence is **important** — if it had been available, it would have materially altered the court's decision.

**Example:** After a property suit is decided, a party discovers an unregistered will in a locked cabinet of the deceased, which directly contradicts the court's findings on inheritance. If due diligence was exercised and the will could not have been found earlier, this may be a valid ground for review.

2. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record

This is the most commonly invoked ground. The error must be:

- **Self-evident** — It should be obvious without requiring elaborate reasoning or argument.

- **Not a matter of debate** — If reasonable minds can differ on the legal point, it is not an error apparent on the face of the record.

- **Material** — It must affect the outcome of the case.

**Example:** If the court, while calculating damages, makes an arithmetic error of Rs. 10 lakh, or if the court overlooks a directly applicable Supreme Court judgment that was cited during arguments, these constitute errors apparent on the face of the record.

3. Any Other Sufficient Reason

This is a residuary ground interpreted very narrowly. It cannot be used as a disguised appeal. The Supreme Court has held that "sufficient reason" must be a reason analogous to the first two grounds — it must point to a manifest error or injustice that makes the order unsustainable.

**Example:** If a judgment was procured by fraud or misrepresentation that was discovered after the decision was rendered, this may constitute "sufficient reason" for review.

Review vs. Appeal vs. Revision

|---------|--------|--------|----------|

Practical Examples

**Example 1:** A High Court dismisses a writ petition challenging a land acquisition notification, failing to consider a directly applicable Supreme Court judgment cited by the petitioner. The petitioner files a review petition pointing out that the binding precedent was overlooked — an error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court grants the review and reconsiders the case in light of the overlooked judgment.

**Example 2:** After a money decree is passed, the decree holder discovers that the debtor had made a partial payment that was not reflected in the court's records due to a clerical error. The decree holder files a review petition to correct the decretal amount.

**Example 3:** The Supreme Court decides a case and subsequently, the losing party discovers that a key document relied upon by the winning party was forged — a fact that only came to light through an unrelated criminal investigation. The losing party files a review petition under Article 137, arguing that the judgment was obtained by fraud.

When Does This Term Matter?

- **Last resort before the same court** — When you believe the court's own decision contains a clear error but you do not want to (or cannot) go to a higher court, review is the appropriate remedy.

- **Error correction** — For computational errors, overlooked precedents, or other self-evident mistakes, review is faster and more direct than an appeal.

- **After appeal is barred** — Review is particularly important when the time for filing an appeal has expired or when no appeal is available against the decision.

- **Supreme Court decisions** — Since no appeal lies from a Supreme Court judgment (it is the court of last resort), the review petition under Article 137 is the only way to seek reconsideration.

- **Curative petitions** — If a review petition before the Supreme Court is also dismissed, the ultimate remedy is a **curative petition**, an extraordinary remedy recognized by the Supreme Court in *Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002)* to prevent abuse of process and gross miscarriage of justice.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the limitation period for filing a review petition?

Under Article 124 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a review petition must be filed within **30 days** from the date of the decree or order sought to be reviewed. In the Supreme Court, the limitation period is also 30 days from the date of the judgment. Condonation of delay may be sought under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but courts are strict about this deadline, especially for review petitions.

Can a review petition be filed against any court order?

A review petition can be filed against a **decree or order** from which an appeal is allowed but no appeal has been preferred, or from which no appeal is allowed. It cannot be filed if an appeal has already been filed and is pending — the issues should be raised in the appeal itself. Additionally, review does not lie against every interlocutory order; it is primarily available against final decisions that determine the rights of parties.

Is a review petition heard in open court?

In subordinate courts and High Courts, review petitions are generally heard in open court after notice to the other party, unless the court rejects the application at the threshold under Order 47 Rule 7. In the Supreme Court, review petitions are ordinarily decided **in chambers** (without oral hearing) by circulation among the judges of the bench that delivered the original judgment. Open-court hearing is granted only in exceptional cases.

What is the difference between a review petition and a curative petition?

A **review petition** is filed under Order 47 CPC (for civil courts) or Article 137 (for the Supreme Court) on the three prescribed grounds. A **curative petition** is an extraordinary remedy available only in the Supreme Court, established by the decision in *Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002)*. It is filed after a review petition has been dismissed and is meant to cure gross miscarriage of justice. A curative petition is subject to very strict conditions, including certification by a senior advocate that it raises valid grounds, and it is first circulated to the three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.

Review