Power of Reference, Review and Revision

Reference
Section 113 of Civil Procedure Code deals with the provision of reference. This section
empowers a subordinate court to state a case and refer the same for the opinion of the High
Court. Such an opinion can be sought when the court itself feels doubt about a question of
law. The High Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.
Such opinion can be sought by a court when the court trying a suit, appeal or execution
proceedings entertains reasonable doubt a question of law.
Object
The purpose of the Reference provisions is to allow the subordinate court to obtain the High
Court's opinion in non-appealable cases where there is a question of law, thereby avoiding
any errors that cannot be corrected later.
Conditions for seeking reference
The procedure for making a reference is mentioned in Order 46 of the CPC. To make a
referral to the High Court, the subordinate court must meet the conditions outlined in Order
46 of the Civil Procedure Code, which are as follows:
1. While making a reference, the suit or appeal must be pending before the court, and no
further appeal from the order of such suit or decree is pending before the court.
2. The question of the legality of a provision of the law must have arisen during the pendency
of the suit, that is, while the suit was being heard in court.
3. When such doubts about the legality of the provision of law arose, the court must have
been hearing the case.
Questions on law on which a subordinate court may entertain a doubt may be divided
into two classes

a) Questions about the legality of any Act, Ordinance, or Regulation.

b) Any other questions.

The second condition allows for optional reference, whereas the first condition, a question
related to any Act, Ordinance, or Regulations, requires mandatory reference. When the
following conditions are met, reference is required in such a case:

a) In order to dispose the case, the decision of such question is necessary.

b) The subordinate court seeking reference believes that the Act, Ordinance, or Regulation is
unconstitutional.

c) There has been no determination by the Supreme Court or the High Court to which the
court is subordinate that such Act is ultra vires.

Who Can apply for reference?

Only a court can refer a case either on an application of a party or Suo Motu. Court means a
Court of Civil Judicature. A tribunal or persona designata cannot be said to be a court and no
reference can be made by them.

Power and duty of the referring court

Only when there is a legal doubt in a suit, appeal, or execution proceeding before the court
can a reference be made. According to the decision in Banarasi Yadav v. Krishna
Chandra, the question of law on which the subordinate court is uncertain must have been
raised in the case for adjudication and cannot be a hypothetical question.

As a result, no mention can be made of a hypothetical question or point that may or may not
arise in the future. However, if the situation arises, it may be taken into account for future
reference.

Power and duty of the High Court

In this case, the High Court has consultative jurisdiction. When a reference is sought from the
High Court, the High Court is not bound to decide only the question of law in dispute.
According to the decision in S.K. Roy v. Board of Revenue, the High Court can consider
new aspects of law if they arise.

To answer the question of which reference is sought, the High Court has complete discretion,
as discussed in Order 46 of the Code. The High Court may respond to the question and
remand the case to the referring court to be resolved in accordance with the law. It is also up
to the High Court to refuse to answer the question, and it has the authority to do so.

Effects of reference
It was held in the case of L.S. Sherlekar v. D.L. Agarwal that when a reference is sought
from the High Court and the decree is confirmed if the High Court answers the question in
favour of the plaintiff. If the High Court rules against him, the suit is dismissed.

Rule 3 of Order 46 states that if the High Court desires, it shall decide the referred points and
transmit a copy of its judgment to the subordinate court, which shall dispose of the case in
reference to said decisions after hearing the parties.

Review

The provision for review is defined in Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the event
of a review, the party who is dissatisfied with the court's order may file an application for
review in the same court that issued the decree. This provision was enacted to allow the court
to review its own decree or judgment and correct it if an error was made while passing the
judgment. In legal parlance, it is a judicial re-examination of the case by the same court and
by the same judge.

In the case of Ram Baksh v. Rajeshwari Kunwar, AIR 1948 AII 213 it was held that even
if the appeal was dismissed on any ground, the option of review remained open.

The procedure to be followed in the event of a review is defined in Order 47 of the CPC. The
parties may file an application for review in the following circumstances:

1) The decree or judgment is appealable, but no appeal has been filed in accordance with the
law.

2) If no provision for appeal is made in the law for a specific decree or judgment.

3) The decision was made by the Court of Small Causes.

The law specifies the grounds for filing an application for review:

a) Where there are new discoveries of facts that were not known or could not be produced at
the time of the decree's passage due to ignorance.

b) If the error is discovered on the face of the record, the entire case does not need to be
argued again. These errors have nothing to do with incorrect court decisions.

c) Any other case in which the court's delusion can be considered sufficient ground.

Object of review

The remedy of review, which is a reconsideration of the judgement by the same court and by
the same judge, has been borrowed from the courts of equity. The concept was not known to
common law. The remedy has a remarkable resemblance to a writ of error. Any human being,
including judges, can make a mistake or error. As a result, the Review procedure has been
embedded in the legal system to correct mistakes and prevent miscarriages of justice, as
determined in the case of Nagraj v. State of Karnataka. The review application is not an
appeal or revision to a higher court, but rather a request to recall and reconsider the decision
made by the same court.

Circumstances when review petition is maintainable

A review petition may be filed with the court in the following circumstances:

1)When no appeal lies in the case

When there is no appeal from an order or decree, the Court can review it, according to section
114 of the code. In Ganeshi Lal v. Seth Mool Chand, it was determined that, under sub-
clause (c) of Section 114, an application for review against a decree issued by a Small Causes
Court is permissible.

2) when appeal lies in the case but not preferred

When an appeal provision exists but is not preferred by the aggrieved party, a review petition
may be filed. According to the decision in Sitaramasastry v. Sunderamma, an application
for review can be filed before the court only if no appeal is filed against the order. When an
appeal has already been filed before filing an application for review, the court will not hear it.

Grounds for review

Rule 1 of Order 47 states that an application for a review of a judgment may be made on the
following grounds:

a) On the discovery of new and significant information or evidence

A court may reconsider its decision if the applicant discovers new and significant information
or evidence that could not be produced or was not available at the time the decree was issued.

b) When mistakes or errors are visible on the surface of the record

When there is an obvious error on the face of the record, the court may reconsider its decision
or decree. According to the decision in the case of Karutha Kritya v. R. Ramalinga Raju, the
error includes both a factual and a legal error.

c) Other sufficient reason

Any sufficient reason is the final ground for review. This ground encompasses any sufficient
ground considered by the court for review. It could be for any reason the court deems
sufficient to reconsider its decision in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

Who can make a review?

A review is a reconsideration of the same matter by the same judge who decided it
previously. If the judge who made the decision is present in court, he alone has jurisdiction to
review the matter. He is thought to be the best person to reconsider the case because only he
will remember what arguments were made and what reason he used to decide that case.
However, if the same "judicial officer" is not available and any unavoidable reason prevents
the judge who decided the case from reviewing it, then any judge or court of concurrent
jurisdiction can review it and make a decision, as held in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd.
v. Pravinbhai.

The limitation period for review

According to Article 124 of the Limitation Act of 1963, the limitation period for filing an
application for review in a court other than the Supreme Court is thirty days from the date of
the decree or order.

Revision

Revision means the action of revising, especially critical or careful examination or perusal
with a view to correcting or improving.

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers a High Court to entertain a revision
any case decided by any subordinate court in certain circumstances. This jurisdiction is
known as revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

Nature and Scope

Section 115 authorises the High Court to satisfy itself on three matters:

a) That the order of the subordinate court is within jurisdiction

b) That the case is one in which the court ought to exercise its jurisdiction
c) That in exercising jurisdiction the court has not illegally, that is, in breach of some
provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error of
procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the
ultimate decision.

If the High Court is satisfied with these three matters, it has no power to interfere
because it differ, however profoundly, from the conclusion of the subordinate court on
questions of fact or of law.

Object of revision

The goal of granting the High Court revisional jurisdiction is to prevent the subordinate court
from exercising jurisdiction arbitrarily, illegally, or irregularly. It clothes the High Courts
with the powers to see that the proceedings of the subordinate courts are conducted in
accordance with law within the bounds of their jurisdiction and in furtherance of justice. It
enables the High Court to correct, when necessary, errors of jurisdiction committed by
subordinate courts and provide the means to an aggrieved party to obtain rectification of a
non -appealable order. In other words, for the effective exercise of its superintending and
visitorial powers, revisional jurisdiction is conferred upon the High Court.

The judges of the subordinate court have absolute jurisdiction to decide a case, and even if
they make an incorrect decision, they do not commit a "jurisdictional error." With the power
of revision, the High Court can correct a subordinate court's jurisdictional error. The revision
provision allows the aggrieved party to have their non-appealable orders corrected.

Conditions

Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code specifies the conditions under which the High Court
may exercise its revisional jurisdiction:

a) The matter must be resolved.

b) When there is no appeal in the case decided by the subordinate court, the revisional
jurisdiction is exercised.

c)The subordinate court has decided such case by:

1) Exercise of jurisdiction which is not vested to that court by law., or

2) It has failed to exercise the vested jurisdiction, or

3) Illegal exercise of the vested power or with immaterial irregularity.

The High Court has no authority to vary or reverse a subordinate court's order or decision
unless such order is in favour of the party who has applied for revision. Furthermore, the
revisional jurisdiction is not to be exercised if the matter is before the High Court.

Who may file?

Any aggrieved party may file an application for revision once the case has been decided,
provided there is no current appeal against the case. If the proper cause is discovered, such as
extra-judicial activity or illegal and erroneous procedure used by the subordinate court, the
High Court may decide to revise the case. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court
may also exercise Suo Moto revisional jurisdiction.

In the case of S. Muthu Narayanan v. Paulraj Naicker, 2018, the revision petition is
dismissed and the previous order is confirmed because the revision petitioner has no right to
challenge the decree's executability.

Can the power of revision be used if another remedy is available?

The court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction is at its discretion, and the parties cannot assert
it as a right. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case of Major. S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J.
Dillion that the court must consider several factors before exercising revisional jurisdiction.
One of these factors is the availability of an alternative remedy. When the aggrieved party has
an alternative and effective remedy, the court may not exercise its revisional power under
Section 115 of the Code.

Limitation Period for Revision

Article 131 of the Schedule of Limitation Act provides a 90-day limitation period from the
date of the decree, order, or sentence sought to be revised to file the revision under the Code
of Civil Procedure. As a result, the time limit for filing a revision against the contested order
is 90 days. The revision application must be filed with the High Court within the time limit.

In the case of Salekh Chand V. Deepak Sharma, during the pendency of the revision
petition, the revisionist filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However,
the Court ruled that Article 131 of the Schedule of Limitations Act stated that the limitation
period for filing for revision is 90 days. As a result, the revision petition was not barred by
limitation and could proceed.