Review and Revision Petitions

5.1 Review Petitions - Civil Courts

Review is not an appeal in disguise. It is a limited remedy to correct errors apparent on the face of the record. Understanding this narrow scope is essential for effective advocacy.

Legal Framework

Review in civil courts is governed by Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 114 CPC. It lies to the same court that passed the judgment or order.

Grounds for Review (Order 47 Rule 1)

1. Discovery of new evidence: New and important matter or evidence discovered which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence
2. Error apparent on face of record: Mistake or error apparent from the record itself
3. Any other sufficient reason: Analogous to grounds for revision under Section 114

What Constitutes Error Apparent?

• Self-evident error: Error so manifest that it requires no elaborate argument to establish
• Not debatable: There should be only one view possible - if two views are possible, no error apparent
• Clerical mistakes: Arithmetical or typographical errors
• Overlooked provisions: Statutory provisions directly applicable but not considered
• Binding precedent ignored: Judgment of higher court directly on point not considered

"Error apparent must be such as is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be discovered by a long process of reasoning on points on which there may be two opinions."T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa (1954)

5.2 Review in the Supreme Court

Review in the Supreme Court is governed by Article 137 of the Constitution and Supreme Court Rules. The scope is even narrower given the finality of Supreme Court judgments.

Legal Basis

• Article 137: Power to review any judgment or order subject to law made by Parliament and rules
• Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Order 47 prescribes procedure for review
• Limitation: 30 days from the date of judgment (extendable)

Grounds for Review in Supreme Court

1. Discovery of new matter: Material which despite due diligence was not discoverable earlier
2. Error apparent: Patent error not requiring elaborate reasoning
3. Any other sufficient reason: Must be analogous to the first two grounds

Special Features of SC Review

• Circulation: Review petitions are first decided by circulation (without oral hearing)
• Same coram: Ideally heard by the same bench that decided the case
• No oral hearing (usually): Oral hearing granted only if the petition has merit
• Extremely narrow: Court reluctant to disturb its own final judgments

5.3 Curative Petitions

Beyond review lies the curative petition - the last remedy when review is dismissed but grave miscarriage of justice remains. It is an extraordinary jurisdiction rarely exercised.

Origin and Basis

The curative petition was recognized by the Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002). It is based on the inherent powers of the Court to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice.

Grounds for Curative Petition

• Violation of natural justice: Petitioner was not heard or not given adequate opportunity
• Bias: Judge was biased and should have recused
• Abuse of process: Judgment obtained by fraud or suppression of material facts
• Gross miscarriage of justice: Manifest injustice that shocks the conscience

Procedural Requirements

1. Senior advocate certification: Must be certified by a senior advocate that grounds are made out
2. Circulation first: Circulated to the same bench (if available) that decided review
3. Three senior judges: If merit found, placed before three senior-most judges
4. In camera: May be heard in chambers unless open court hearing directed
5. Costs: Exemplary costs if petition found frivolous

"A curative petition lies only when there is gross miscarriage of justice or where there has been violation of principles of natural justice or where the order has been obtained by fraud."Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002)

5.4 Revision Petitions

Revision is a supervisory jurisdiction of higher courts over subordinate courts. Unlike appeal, it focuses on jurisdictional errors and illegality, not merits.

Civil Revision (Section 115 CPC)

The High Court may revise cases decided by subordinate courts where:

• Jurisdiction assumed: Subordinate court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it
• Jurisdiction not exercised: Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it
• Illegal exercise: Jurisdiction exercised illegally or with material irregularity

Criminal Revision (Sections 397-401 CrPC)

• High Court: Can revise any order of courts subordinate to it
• Sessions Court: Can revise orders of Magistrates
• Suo motu: Can be exercised on court's own motion
• Record calling: Court can call for and examine record for legality and propriety

Revision vs. Appeal - Key Differences

5.5 Drafting and Strategy

Success in review and revision depends on precise drafting and realistic assessment of grounds. These are extraordinary remedies - treat them as such.

Drafting Review Petitions

1. Identify the error: Pinpoint the exact paragraph/finding that is erroneous
2. Show it is apparent: Demonstrate that the error is manifest, not arguable
3. Cite the law: If statutory provision or precedent was ignored, quote it exactly
4. New evidence: If relying on new evidence, explain why it could not be produced earlier
5. Be concise: Review petitions should be short and focused - not lengthy re-arguments

Drafting Revision Petitions

• Jurisdictional error: Clearly articulate the jurisdictional defect
• Material irregularity: Show how procedural irregularity caused prejudice
• No alternative remedy: Explain why revision is appropriate, not appeal
• Urgency if any: If interim order is causing ongoing prejudice, highlight it

When NOT to File

• Mere disagreement: You disagree with appreciation of evidence - file appeal, not review
• Arguable points: Your ground requires elaborate argument - not error apparent
• New arguments: Arguments not raised earlier cannot be raised in review
• Delay tactic: Courts penalize frivolous reviews filed only to delay