Review Under CPC — Section 114 and Order 47 Explained 2026

What Is Review Under CPC?

Review is a remedial procedure under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by which a person aggrieved by a decree or order may apply to the same court that passed the decree or order to review and reconsider it. Unlike an appeal (where a higher court re-examines the case), a review is heard by the SAME court or judge — making it a self-corrective mechanism. Review is not a right — it is a discretionary remedy available only in limited circumstances where there is an error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence is discovered.

The scope of review is extremely narrow — it is NOT a rehearing of the case or an appeal in disguise. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that review is meant to correct patent errors, not to re-argue the case on merits. A review application that merely seeks to re-argue the same points already considered and rejected will be dismissed.

Grounds for Review — Order 47 Rule 1

An application for review may be made on the following grounds:

1. Discovery of New and Important Matter or Evidence: The applicant has discovered new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, could not have been produced at the time the decree was passed. Conditions: (a) the evidence must be "new" — not available at the time of the original proceeding, (b) it must be "important" — capable of changing the outcome, (c) the applicant must show that despite due diligence, the evidence could not have been produced earlier. If the applicant could have produced the evidence with reasonable effort: review is denied.

2. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record: There is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. "Error apparent" means an error that is: (a) self-evident — it can be identified without elaborate reasoning, (b) patent — obvious to anyone reading the order, (c) not a debatable point of law — if reasonable minds can differ, it is not an error apparent. Examples: (i) arithmetical or clerical error, (ii) overlooking a binding precedent directly on point, (iii) overlooking a statutory provision applicable to the case, (iv) misreading or overlooking a material document on record. What is NOT error apparent: (i) wrong appreciation of evidence, (ii) incorrect interpretation of a debatable legal provision, (iii) an alternative view of facts.

3. Any Other Sufficient Reason: Any other sufficient reason — this is a residual ground that covers cases not falling within the first two categories. Courts have interpreted this restrictively — the reason must be analogous in nature to the first two grounds. It is not meant to be a catch-all for rehearing the case.

Who Can Apply for Review?

Under Order 47 Rule 1: "Any person considering himself aggrieved" by the decree or order may apply. This includes: (a) any party to the suit, (b) a person who was not a party but is directly affected by the decree (with the court's permission). The application must be made to the same court that passed the decree — not to a higher or lower court.

Limitation Period

Under the Limitation Act, 1963 (Article 124): the application for review must be filed within 30 days from the date of the decree or order. If the applicant claims discovery of new evidence: 30 days from the date of discovery (with proof that due diligence was exercised). Condonation of delay is available under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if the applicant shows sufficient cause.

Procedure — Order 47

Rule 2 — Who Hears the Review: The review application is heard by the same judge who passed the original order (wherever practicable). If that judge is not available (transferred, retired, deceased): any other judge of the same court can hear the review.

Rule 3 — Notice: Unless the court rejects the application summarily (without hearing the opposite party), it must issue notice to the opposite party and fix a hearing date. Many review applications are rejected at the threshold (without notice) if the court is satisfied that no ground for review exists.

Rule 4 — Restriction on Second Review: Where an application for review has been disposed of: no further application for review shall be entertained in the same matter. This prevents successive review applications on the same grounds.

Rule 5 — Stay Pending Review: The court may stay execution of the decree pending disposal of the review application — but stays are granted sparingly and only when the review application has prima facie merit.

Review vs Appeal vs Revision — Key Differences

Review Before Tribunals

Many tribunals have their own review provisions: (a) NCLT/NCLAT — inherent power to review (though not explicitly provided, derived from CPC), (b) ITAT — Section 254(2) provides for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record (analogous to review), (c) Consumer Commissions — can review their own orders on grounds similar to Order 47, (d) SAT — has review power under its procedural rules. The grounds and procedure may vary from CPC provisions — always check the tribunal's specific rules.

Practical Tips for Filing Review Applications

(a) Do not treat review as an appeal: Re-arguing the same points will lead to rejection. Focus only on genuine errors apparent or new evidence. (b) Be specific: Identify the exact paragraph of the order containing the error, cite the specific evidence overlooked, and show why it is "apparent" (self-evident). (c) File within 30 days: The limitation is strict — even a day's delay requires a condonation application with sufficient cause. (d) Consider alternatives: If the error is substantive: an appeal may be more appropriate than a review. Review should be used only when the error is patent and the appeal route is not available or exhausted. (e) New evidence must be truly new: The court will scrutinize whether the evidence was genuinely unavailable earlier despite due diligence — evidence that the party chose not to produce is not "new."