In the context of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), reference, review, and revision are legal processes that provide additional avenues to parties aggrieved by a decision or order of a court. These processes are designed to ensure that errors or unjust decisions in the judicial system can be corrected. Below is an explanation of each of these processes.
1. Reference (Section 113 and Order 46, CPC)
Reference is a process wherein a subordinate court or tribunal refers a matter to a higher court for its opinion or judgment. This mechanism is used when a court is confronted with a question of law that requires clarification or guidance from a superior court, especially if it involves an important point of law or judicial interpretation.
- Section 113, CPC empowers a lower court to refer a case to a High Court if it is unsure about a question of law.
- It typically arises in situations where the lower court believes the decision it is required to make involves a point of law that has not been decided or is ambiguous in its application.
Procedure for Reference
- The lower court makes a reference by seeking clarification or guidance from a higher court.
- A reference must be made on a specific question of law that is difficult to resolve, and the case is held in abeyance until the higher court provides an answer.
- The higher court will then pronounce its opinion on the matter, which is binding on the lower court.
Example
If a trial court is confronted with a legal issue regarding the interpretation of a particular statute that it feels needs clarification, it can make a reference to the High Court for an opinion.
2. Review (Order 47, Rule 1, CPC)
Review is a procedure that allows a party to ask the same court to review its own judgment or order if the party feels that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
- Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC governs the review of a judgment or order. A review is not an appeal, as it does not involve re-hearing or re-assessment of facts. It is concerned only with the correction of errors apparent on the face of the record.
Grounds for Review
A judgment or order can be reviewed on the following grounds:
- Discovery of new and important matter or evidence that was not available at the time of the original judgment.
- Error apparent on the face of the record, i.e., an error that is clear and obvious and does not require further investigation or arguments.
- Any other sufficient reason that justifies the review.
Procedure for Review
- The application for review must be filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed (unless there is a reasonable explanation for delay).
- The application must clearly state the grounds on which the review is sought.
- The court will examine whether there is an error on the face of the record or if new evidence warrants a review.
- If the review is allowed, the court may either:
- Modify the judgment/order.
- Revoke the judgment/order.
- Dismiss the application if no valid ground is found.
Example
If a party feels that a legal provision was misunderstood by the court, leading to an unjust decree, they may file a review application. However, review is only for correcting errors that are clear and undisputed, not for re-arguing the case.
3. Revision (Section 115, CPC)
Revision is a procedure through which a higher court (usually the High Court) reviews the correctness, legality, or propriety of an order passed by a subordinate court or tribunal. It does not involve re-hearing of the case, but rather focuses on correcting errors of jurisdiction or misapplication of the law.
- Section 115 of the CPC grants the High Court the power to revise decisions of lower courts in certain circumstances.
Grounds for Revision
The revisionary power is invoked when:
- Subordinate court has acted beyond its jurisdiction.
- The court has made an order that is illegal or erroneous.
- The order has led to a failure of justice, or the subordinate court has overlooked a material point of law or fact.
Procedure for Revision
- The revision petition must be filed before the High Court within 90 days from the date of the order being challenged.
- The revision application must clearly state the grounds on which the revision is sought, highlighting errors or excesses in jurisdiction or a failure to follow the law.
- The High Court will examine whether the subordinate court:
- Had proper jurisdiction.
- Applied the law correctly.
- Made an error that resulted in injustice.
- The High Court has discretion to either:
- Quash or set aside the order.
- Remand the matter to the lower court for re-consideration.
- Confirm the order if it finds no merit in the revision.
Example
If a trial court passed an order beyond its jurisdiction (for instance, by deciding a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of a different court), a revision petition can be filed before the High Court.
Differences Between Reference, Review, and Revision
| Feature | Reference | Review | Revision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who Initiates | Subordinate Court refers the matter. | The aggrieved party files the review. | The aggrieved party files a revision petition. |
| When Used | To seek clarification of a question of law. | To correct an error apparent on the record. | To correct an illegal, erroneous, or jurisdictional error by a lower court. |
| Scope | Limited to a legal question. | Limited to errors on the face of the record. | Focuses on jurisdictional errors or failure to follow legal principles. |
| Court Involved | Higher court (usually the High Court). | Same court that passed the original order. | High Court (except in certain cases involving the Supreme Court). |
| Grounds | A question of law requiring clarification. | Errors apparent on the record or new evidence. | Incorrect application of law, jurisdictional errors, or failure of justice. |
| Time Limit | No fixed time limit, determined by the court. | Application must be filed within 30 days. | Revision must be filed within 90 days. |
Conclusion
- Reference, review, and revision are important mechanisms within the CPC that provide a means to correct errors in the judicial process.
- Reference allows a lower court to seek clarification from a higher court.
- Review provides an opportunity to correct errors or reconsider a judgment within the same court.
- Revision provides a higher court with the ability to correct jurisdictional or legal errors made by a subordinate court.
These mechanisms play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and fairness of the judicial process by ensuring that errors are corrected and justice is served.
