Section 114 CPC — Review

Introduction

Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with the review of a judgment, decree or order. It allows a person who is aggrieved by certain decisions to approach the same court which passed the decree or made the order for reconsideration, subject to the conditions prescribed by the CPC.

Section 114 must be read along with Order XLVII CPC, which provides the grounds and procedure for review. The purpose of review is to correct a limited and legally recognised error or to consider important new material which could not previously be produced despite due diligence.

Review is not an appeal in disguise. A party cannot use review proceedings merely to reargue the entire case or obtain a second opportunity to establish its case.

Section at a Glance

Particular	Details
Section	Section 114 CPC
Subject	Review
Nature	Procedural remedy
Reviewing Court	Court which passed the decree or made the order
Main Related Provision	Order XLVII CPC
Main Grounds	New and important matter, error apparent, sufficient reason
Main Limitation	Review cannot be used as a substitute for appeal

Statutory Provision

Section 114 CPC provides:

114. Review.—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.

Meaning of Review

Review means reconsideration of a judgment, decree or order by the same court which passed it, where the conditions prescribed by law are satisfied.

The power of review is limited. It does not permit the court to rehear the entire case as an appellate court.

The main grounds for review are provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

Object of Review

The purpose of review is to ensure that a judgment does not continue to operate where there is a legally recognised error or where important material, which could not previously be produced despite due diligence, comes to light.

The main objectives are:

• To correct an error apparent on the face of the record.
• To consider new and important matter or evidence.
• To prevent serious injustice in appropriate cases.
• To enable the court to correct an error in its own judgment within the limits prescribed by law.

Who Can Apply for Review?

Section 114 allows any person considering himself aggrieved by the relevant decree, order or decision to apply for review, provided the statutory requirements are satisfied.

The application is made to the same court which passed the decree or made the order.

When Can a Review Be Filed?

Section 114 recognises three situations in which review may be sought.

1. Appeal is Allowed but No Appeal Has Been Preferred

A person aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed under the CPC may seek review where no appeal has been preferred, subject to the requirements of Order XLVII.

2. No Appeal is Allowed

A person aggrieved by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by the CPC may seek review, provided the grounds for review are established.

3. Decision on a Reference from a Court of Small Causes

Review may also be sought against a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, subject to the requirements of the CPC.

Grounds of Review Under Order XLVII Rule 1

Section 114 provides the statutory basis for review, while Order XLVII Rule 1 provides the principal grounds.

There are three important grounds of review.

1. Discovery of New and Important Matter or Evidence

Review may be sought where the applicant discovers new and important matter or evidence which:

• was not within the applicant’s knowledge when the decree was passed or order was made; or
• could not be produced by the applicant despite the exercise of due diligence.

The requirement of due diligence is important. A party cannot deliberately fail to produce evidence and later seek review simply because the result of the case was unfavourable.

2. Mistake or Error Apparent on the Face of the Record

A review may be sought where there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

An error apparent is an obvious error which can be identified from the record itself. It should not require a lengthy or complicated process of reasoning to establish.

A mere disagreement with the court’s reasoning does not ordinarily amount to an error apparent on the face of the record.

3. Any Other Sufficient Reason

Review may also be sought for any other sufficient reason.

This expression does not give the court unlimited power. The reason must be sufficient in law and must fall within the recognised scope of review jurisdiction.

Review Is Not an Appeal

The most important principle relating to Section 114 is that review is not an appeal.

An appeal allows the appellate court to reconsider the decision within the scope of its appellate jurisdiction. Review, on the other hand, is exercised by the same court that passed the original decision and is restricted to the grounds recognised under Order XLVII Rule 1.

A party cannot file a review merely because it believes that the court reached the wrong conclusion on the merits.

What Cannot Be Done in Review?

Review proceedings cannot ordinarily be used:

• To rehear the entire case.
• To reargue matters already decided.
• To substitute one possible view for another.
• To correct every alleged error in the judgment.
• To introduce arguments that were already available to the applicant.
• To obtain a second appeal in the form of a review.
• Merely because the applicant is dissatisfied with the judgment.

Error Apparent on the Face of the Record

The expression error apparent on the face of the record is one of the most important concepts under review jurisdiction.

An error is apparent when it is obvious from the record and does not require a long process of reasoning to establish.

For example, if a court records that a particular statutory provision contains a certain number or mathematical figure when the record itself clearly shows otherwise, such an obvious mistake may constitute an error apparent.

However, where the alleged error can only be established after lengthy arguments and examination of competing interpretations, it generally does not fall within the limited scope of review.

New and Important Evidence

For new evidence to constitute a ground for review, the applicant must establish that the evidence is:

1. New and important;
2. Relevant to the case; and
3. Such that it could not be produced earlier despite due diligence.

The requirement of due diligence prevents parties from withholding evidence during the original proceedings and subsequently attempting to reopen the case through review.

Subsequent Change in Law

A subsequent reversal or modification of the legal position by a superior court in another case does not, by itself, constitute a ground for review under Order XLVII Rule 1.

Therefore, a later judgment changing the interpretation of law does not automatically entitle every unsuccessful litigant to have an earlier judgment reviewed.

Procedure for Review

The basic procedure can be understood as follows:

1. A person is aggrieved by a decree or order.
2. The person examines whether Section 114 applies.
3. The applicant identifies a recognised ground under Order XLVII Rule 1.
4. The review application is filed before the court which passed the decree or order.
5. The court examines the maintainability and grounds of the application.
6. If the requirements are satisfied, the court may review its judgment, decree or order.
7. If the requirements are not satisfied, the review application is rejected.

Court Which Can Hear a Review

A review application is ordinarily made to the same court which passed the decree or made the order.

This is an important distinction between review and appeal.

In an appeal, the matter is brought before a superior appellate court. In a review, the original court is asked to reconsider its own decision within the limited statutory grounds.

Review and Appeal

Basis	Review	Appeal
Provision	Section 114 and Order XLVII	Relevant appellate provisions
Court	Same court	Superior appellate court
Purpose	Correction of limited errors or consideration of qualifying new material	Examination of correctness of decision
Scope	Limited	Generally wider
Nature	Exceptional remedy	Statutory appellate remedy
Rehearing	Not a general rehearing	May involve reconsideration of merits

Review and Revision

Basis	Review	Revision
Provision	Section 114	Section 115
Court	Same court which passed the decision	High Court
Purpose	Reconsideration on recognised grounds	Supervisory correction of specified jurisdictional errors
Main Rules	Order XLVII	Section 115
Nature	Limited reconsideration	Revisional jurisdiction

Important Case Law

Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati

Citation: (2013) 8 SCC 320

The Supreme Court held that review proceedings are not proceedings by way of appeal. The jurisdiction of review must remain within the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

The case is an important authority for understanding the limited nature of review jurisdiction.

Lily Thomas v. Union of India

Citation: (2000) 6 SCC 224

The Supreme Court explained that the power of review is not an inherent power and must be exercised within the limits prescribed by law.

The case is frequently cited for the principle that review is not a rehearing of the original matter.

Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi

Citation: (1997) 8 SCC 715

The Supreme Court explained the meaning of an error apparent on the face of the record and emphasised that an error which requires a long process of reasoning cannot ordinarily be treated as an error apparent.

Practical Example

Suppose a civil court passes a decree against A. After the judgment, A discovers an important document which existed during the proceedings but could not be produced despite due diligence.

If the requirements of Order XLVII Rule 1 are satisfied, A may apply for review before the same court.

Example of Error Apparent

Suppose the judgment contains an obvious error which can be identified directly from the record without lengthy arguments or reconsideration of the entire evidence.

Such an error may provide a basis for review.

Example Where Review Is Not Available

Suppose the court considers the evidence and adopts one of two possible interpretations of the law. The unsuccessful party believes that the other interpretation is better.

The party cannot ordinarily use review proceedings merely to persuade the court to adopt the alternative interpretation.

Important Distinction

Section 113 = Reference

A subordinate court refers a question to the High Court.

Section 114 = Review

The same court reconsiders its own judgment, decree or order on limited statutory grounds.

Section 115 = Revision

The High Court exercises revisional jurisdiction over certain proceedings of subordinate courts.

Common Questions

Can every judgment be reviewed?

No. Review is available only where the requirements of Section 114 and Order XLVII are satisfied.

Can review be filed merely because the judgment is wrong?

No. A mere allegation that the judgment is wrong on merits is not sufficient. A recognised ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 must be established.

Is review a second appeal?

No. Review is not an appeal in disguise.

Who hears a review application?

The court which passed the decree or made the order generally hears the review application.

Is new evidence automatically a ground for review?

No. The applicant must also satisfy the requirement that the evidence could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence.

Can an error requiring detailed arguments be reviewed?

Ordinarily, no. An error apparent on the face of the record must be apparent without a lengthy process of reasoning.

Importance for Judiciary Exams

For examination purposes, remember the following:

• Section 114 CPC deals with Review.
• Review is filed before the same court.
• Section 114 must be read with Order XLVII CPC.
• Order XLVII Rule 1 provides the principal grounds.
• The three major grounds are:
  1. Discovery of new and important matter or evidence.
  2. Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
  3. Any other sufficient reason.
• Review is not an appeal.
• Review cannot ordinarily be used to reargue the entire case.
• New evidence must satisfy the due diligence requirement.
• An error apparent must be obvious from the record.
• A subsequent change in law is not, by itself, a ground for review.

Important Questions for Exams

1. Explain Section 114 CPC relating to review.
2. What are the grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1?
3. What is meant by error apparent on the face of the record?
4. Distinguish review from appeal.
5. Distinguish review from revision.
6. Who can file an application for review?
7. Can new evidence be a ground for review?
8. Explain the scope and limitations of review jurisdiction.
9. Is review an inherent power of the court?
10. Explain the principle that review is not an appeal in disguise.

Key Takeaways

Concept	Principle
Section 114	Review
Reviewing Court	Same court
Related Order	Order XLVII
New Evidence	Must satisfy due diligence
Error Apparent	Must be apparent from the record
Sufficient Reason	Must be legally sufficient
Review Scope	Limited
Review ≠ Appeal	Review cannot be used as a second appeal
Section 113	Reference
Section 114	Review
Section 115	Revision

ALSO READ: Section 113 – Reference to High Court

Conclusion

Section 114 CPC provides a limited remedy for reconsideration of a decree, order or qualifying decision by the same court which passed it. The provision must be read with Order XLVII, particularly Rule 1, which specifies the grounds on which review may be sought.

The central principle is that review is not a second hearing of the case. It is available only where a recognised ground such as discovery of new and important evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason is established.

For examination purposes, the most important point is to remember the distinction between review, appeal and revision: review is reconsideration by the same court, appeal is examination by a superior court, and revision is the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction in cases covered by Section 115 CPC.