Site icon Legal Vidhiya

REVISION PETITION AND REVIEW PETITION

Admin
Advertisements
Spread the love

This article is written by Gaurav Nagpal of 2nd Semester of Faculty Of Law CLC, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

This abstract provides a concise overview of Revision Petition and Review Petition, two legal remedies available in various jurisdictions. A Revision Petition allows a higher court to review the decision of a lower court to correct grave errors of law or procedural irregularities. It is filed before an appellate court and seeks to ensure justice and rectify miscarriages of justice caused by lower court orders. On the other hand, a Review Petition is filed before the same court that pronounced the original judgment and aims to point out specific errors or omissions in the judgment. The primary objective of a Review Petition is to seek a reconsideration of the court’s own decision based on limited grounds, such as errors on the face of the record or new evidence. Understanding the differences and purposes of these legal remedies is vital for litigants seeking justice in the legal system.

KEYWORDS

Review, Petition, Face of the record, New Higher court, Appellate court, Grave errors, Procedural irregularities, Jurisdictional errors, Miscarriage of justice evidence, Natural justice

INTRODUCTION

In the pursuit of justice, legal systems worldwide offer various avenues for parties to challenge court decisions and rectify potential errors or miscarriages of justice. Two such mechanisms are the Revision Petition and Review Petition. These legal remedies play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring fair outcomes for all parties involved.

Revision Petition:

A Revision Petition is a legal remedy available in select jurisdictions, typically before higher courts or appellate courts. It allows a party aggrieved by a lower court’s decision to seek a review of the judgment on specific grounds. The primary objective of a Revision Petition is to address grave errors of law or procedural irregularities committed by the lower court during the course of the trial. This remedy serves as a safeguard against any miscarriage of justice that may have arisen due to misinterpretation of the law or improper application of legal provisions. The higher court’s intervention is crucial in ensuring that the interests of justice are upheld and that the correct legal principles are applied.

Review Petition:

A Review Petition, unlike a Revision Petition, is filed before the same court that delivered the original judgment. It is a mechanism through which a party can request the court to reconsider its own decision based on limited grounds. The primary objective of a Review Petition is to point out specific errors or omissions in the original judgment. These errors may include factual inaccuracies, legal misinterpretations, or oversight of crucial evidence. The scope of a Review Petition is narrower compared to a Revision Petition, as it primarily focuses on rectifying apparent mistakes rather than rearguing the entire case.

Both Revision Petition and Review Petition are essential legal remedies that allow parties to seek recourse when they believe that justice has been compromised. They provide an opportunity for the judicial system to correct its own errors and maintain its credibility. However, it is essential for litigants to understand the distinctions between these remedies and the specific grounds on which they can be sought. This knowledge enables individuals to make informed decisions while navigating the legal process and seeking redress for any perceived injustices.

In the following sections of this article, we will delve deeper into the key differences and similarities between Revision Petition and Review Petition, exploring their respective procedures, time limits, and the scope of review they offer. By shedding light on these legal remedies, this article aims to empower individuals with a better understanding of their rights and options within the framework of the justice system.

BACKGROUND

The origin and history of Review Petition and Revision Petition can be traced back to the development of legal systems and the evolution of appellate procedures in different jurisdictions. The roots of these remedies can be found in ancient legal traditions, but their modern forms have been shaped by the practices and legal developments of specific countries and legal systems.

Origin of Review Petition:

The concept of review in legal proceedings can be traced back to ancient legal systems, including those of ancient Rome and ancient India. In ancient Rome, a form of appeal known as “restitution in integrum” allowed parties to request a higher court to review a lower court’s decision. Similarly, in ancient India, the concept of “Niryana” or “re-examination” provided for a review of judgments. In both these systems, the review process aimed to correct errors and ensure justice.

Section 113 of CPC: Review of Judgments or Orders by the High Court

Section 113 deals with the review of judgments or orders by the High Court. It states that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a High Court made in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. In simple terms, this means that there is no direct right to appeal to a higher court against a decision of the High Court when it is acting as an appellate court. However, it is subject to any provisions in other laws that may allow for an appeal in certain circumstances. The section also clarifies that the provisions of the Letters Patent of any High Court remain unaffected.

Section 114 of CPC: Review of Judgments or Orders by the Court

Section 114 deals with the power of review by a court. It empowers a court to review its own judgments or orders, but only in specific situations. The court can exercise this power to correct any errors apparent on the face of the record, to prevent abuse of its process, or for any other sufficient reason. This means that the court can, on its own motion or on an application by a party, review its previous judgment or order in certain circumstances.

Origin of Revision Petition:

In the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) of India, there is no specific section that is exclusively dedicated to “Revision Petition.” However, the concept of Revision Petition is covered under the general provisions related to the revision jurisdiction of the High Court.

The provision regarding Revision Petition can be found in Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, which deals with the “Revision Powers of High Court.” Section 115 empowers the High Court to exercise its revision jurisdiction over orders passed by subordinate courts within its territorial jurisdiction.

Section 115 of CPC states:

“115. Revision. —

(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears—

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:

Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where—

(a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or

(b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.

(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any finding of fact arrived at by a Court subordinate to it.”

Section 115 allows the High Court to exercise its revision powers to correct jurisdictional errors, illegal exercise of jurisdiction, or material irregularities in the orders of subordinate courts. However, the power of revision is not an inherent power and can only be exercised within the limits set by the law.

In modern legal systems, the concept of Revision Petition has evolved into a remedy that allows a higher court or an appellate court to review a lower court’s decision and correct grave errors of law or procedural irregularities. The specific procedures and grounds for Revision Petition vary among different jurisdictions, depending on their legal traditions and legal structures.

Overall, the origin and history of Review Petition and Revision Petition reflect the fundamental principles of justice, which emphasize the need for correcting errors and ensuring fairness in legal proceedings. As legal systems have evolved over time, these remedies have become essential mechanisms for parties seeking recourse when they believe that errors or miscarriages of justice have occurred in court decisions.

REVISION PETITION: HOW TO FILE?

Filing a Revision Petition is a formal legal process that allows a party to challenge a lower court’s decision before a higher court or an appellate court. The procedure for filing a Revision Petition may vary slightly depending on the jurisdiction and the specific rules of the court where the petition is being filed. However, the general steps involved in filing a Revision Petition are as follows:

Consultation with an Attorney:

Before proceeding with a Revision Petition, it is essential to consult with an experienced attorney or legal expert. They can assess the merits of your case, review the lower court’s judgment, and advise you on the likelihood of success in filing a Revision Petition.

Identify the Grounds for Revision:

Determine the specific grounds on which you are seeking the revision of the lower court’s decision. Typical grounds may include grave errors of law, procedural irregularities, or jurisdictional issues. It is crucial to have strong legal reasons for seeking the revision.

Gathering Necessary Documents:

Gather all relevant documents related to the case, including the lower court’s judgment, orders, and other supporting evidence. Ensure that you have a complete record of the proceedings to present a comprehensive case before the higher court.

Prepare the Revision Petition: Draft the Revision Petition in the prescribed format, adhering to the court’s rules and procedures. The petition should include essential details such as the names of the parties involved, the lower court’s case number, the date of the lower court’s judgment, and a clear statement of the grounds for seeking the revision. Your attorney can help prepare the petition in a structured and persuasive manner.

Pay the Appropriate Fee:

Check the court’s fee schedule for filing a Revision Petition and ensure that you pay the required fees at the time of filing. Failure to pay the fee may result in the rejection of the petition.

File the Revision Petition:

Submit the Revision Petition along with all supporting documents to the appropriate court. Make sure to comply with any procedural requirements, such as the number of copies needed and the mode of submission (physical or electronic).

Serve the Opposing Party:

In some jurisdictions, you may need to serve a copy of the Revision Petition to the opposing party or their legal representative. This ensures that all parties are aware of the petition and can respond accordingly.

Attend Court Hearings:

Depending on the court’s rules, there may be hearings scheduled for the Revision Petition. Attend these hearings and present your arguments effectively before the higher court.

GROUNDS FOR REVISION PETITION

Grounds for filing a Revision Petition may vary depending on the specific laws and regulations of the jurisdiction in which the petition is being filed. However, some common grounds for seeking a revision of a lower court’s decision through a Revision Petition include:

Grave Errors of Law: One of the primary grounds for filing a Revision Petition is the existence of a grave error of law in the lower court’s judgment. This could include misinterpretation or misapplication of the law, reliance on an incorrect legal provision, or failure to consider binding legal precedents.

Procedural Irregularities: If there were significant procedural irregularities during the lower court proceedings that might have affected the outcome of the case, a Revision Petition can be filed. These irregularities may involve violations of procedural rules, denial of an opportunity to present evidence, or a failure to follow due process.

Jurisdictional Errors: A Revision Petition can be sought if the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise its jurisdiction correctly. If the court lacked the authority to decide the case or improperly assumed jurisdiction, a revision can be requested.

Discovery of New Evidence: If new and crucial evidence has come to light after the lower court’s judgment and was not available during the original proceedings, a Revision Petition may be filed to consider this evidence.

Violation of Fundamental Rights: In some jurisdictions, a Revision Petition can be filed if the lower court’s decision violates fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution or any other relevant laws. Manifest Injustice: A Revision Petition may be sought when the lower court’s decision has resulted in a manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice.

Error of Fact: In certain jurisdictions, a Revision Petition can be filed if there is a clear and evident error of fact in the lower court’s judgment. However, it is essential to note that errors of fact are generally not sufficient grounds for revision in most legal systems

REVIEW PETITION: HOW TO FILE?

A Review Petition is a legal remedy that allows a party to request a court to review its own judgment to correct any apparent errors or omissions. This process is generally available in jurisdictions that recognize it as a means for seeking reconsideration of a court’s decision. Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to file a Review Petition:

Consult with an Attorney:

Before proceeding with a Review Petition, consult with an experienced attorney or legal expert. They will review the judgment, assess the potential grounds for seeking a review, and guide you through the process.

Identify Grounds for Review:

Identify specific errors or omissions in the original judgment that warrant a review. Grounds for review may include errors on the face of the record, factual or legal inaccuracies, or overlooking essential evidence.

Review Petition Format:

Prepare the Review Petition in the prescribed format, following the court’s rules and procedures. Ensure that the petition includes essential details such as the names of the parties, the case number, date of the original judgment, and a clear statement of the grounds for seeking a review.

Time Limit: Review Petitions typically have strict time limits within which they must be filed. Check the relevant laws and court rules to determine the specific time frame allowed for filing a Review Petition. Missing the deadline may result in the petition being rejected as time-barred.

Pay the Appropriate Fee:

Verify the court’s fee schedule for filing a Review Petition and make sure to pay the required fees at the time of filing. Failure to pay the fee may lead to the rejection of the petition.

File the Review Petition:

Submit the Review Petition along with all supporting documents to the same court that delivered the original judgment. Adhere to any procedural requirements, such as the number of copies needed and the mode of submission (physical or electronic).

Serve the Opposing Party:

Depending on the jurisdiction’s rules, you may need to serve a copy of the Review Petition to the opposing party or their legal representative. This ensures that all parties are aware of the petition and can respond accordingly.

Court Hearings:

In some cases, the court may schedule hearings for the Review Petition. Attend these hearings and present your arguments effectively, highlighting the errors or omissions that warrant a review.

Court’s Decision:

The court will evaluate the Review Petition and may decide to either uphold the original judgment or revise it based on the identified errors. The court’s decision on the Review Petition is final and binding.

GROUNDS OF REVIEW PETITION

Grounds for filing a Review Petition may vary depending on the specific laws and regulations of the jurisdiction in which the petition is being filed. However, some common grounds for seeking a review of a court’s judgment through a Review Petition include:

Errors on the Face of the Record: One of the primary grounds for filing a Review Petition is the existence of errors on the face of the record. These errors may include mistakes in the judgment’s language, reasoning, or calculation, which are apparent from a mere perusal of the judgment.

Discovery of New and Important Matter: If new and crucial evidence or facts have emerged after the original judgment, which could not have been presented during the earlier proceedings, a Review Petition may be filed based on this newly discovered matter.

Mistake of Law or Fact: A Review Petition may be sought if there is a clear mistake of law or fact in the judgment that affects the overall outcome of the case. The mistake must be substantial and materially impact the court’s decision.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: If there was a violation of the principles of natural justice during the original proceedings, such as the denial of an opportunity to present evidence or improper conduct by the court, a Review Petition may be filed.

Overlooking or Misinterpretation of Evidence: If the court overlooked crucial evidence or misinterpreted evidence presented during the original trial, a Review Petition can be sought to bring attention to these errors.

Substantial Error Resulting in Injustice: If the judgment contains a substantial error that has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, a Review Petition can be filed to rectify the injustice caused.

Violation of Fundamental Rights: In some jurisdictions, a Review Petition can be filed if the court’s decision violates fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution or any other relevant laws.

As the grounds for filing a Review Petition are jurisdiction-specific, it is essential to consult with an experienced attorney familiar with the laws and procedures of the relevant jurisdiction to determine the appropriate grounds and prepare a strong Review Petition.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REVIEW PETITION AND REVISION PETITION

Review Petition and Revision Petition are two distinct legal remedies available in various legal systems to challenge court decisions. While both seek to rectify errors in judgments, there are significant differences between the two:

Purpose and Scope:

Review Petition: The primary purpose of a Review Petition is to point out specific errors or omissions in the original judgment. It allows the same court that pronounced the judgment to review its decision and correct any apparent mistakes. The scope of review is limited to the errors on the face of the record or any new evidence that was not available during the original proceedings.

Revision Petition: On the other hand, a Revision Petition is filed before a higher court or an appellate court to seek a broader review of the lower court’s decision. The objective is to address grave errors of law, procedural irregularities, or jurisdictional issues. The higher court has the authority to interfere with the lower court’s order to ensure justice is served.

Court of Filing:

Review Petition: A Review Petition is filed before the same court that delivered the original judgment.

Revision Petition: A Revision Petition is filed before a higher court or an appellate court.

Time Limit: Review Petition: Review Petitions typically have strict time limits within which they must be filed, often within a specific period after the pronouncement of the original judgment.

Revision Petition: The time limit for filing a Revision Petition is generally longer than that for a Review Petition. It may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific laws governing the filing of Revision Petitions.

Grounds for Filing:

Review Petition: Grounds for filing a Review Petition usually include errors on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, mistake of law or fact, violation of natural justice, or substantial error resulting in injustice.

Revision Petition: Grounds for filing a Revision Petition typically include grave errors of law, procedural irregularities, jurisdictional errors, and miscarriage of justice.

Finality of the Decision:

Review Petition: The decision on a Review Petition is generally final and binding. Once the court reviews its judgment and delivers its decision on the Review Petition, it concludes the matter.

Revision Petition: The decision on a Revision Petition, being delivered by a higher court, can be further challenged in some cases by way of an appeal to the highest court if permitted by the law.

CASE STUDIES

Notable Case on Review Petition:

In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India[1], the Supreme Court of India emphasized the significance of the Review Petition as a remedy for rectifying errors in its judgments. The court held that a review was maintainable on the grounds of discovery of new and important material, an error apparent on the face of the record, or if the original judgment was passed without jurisdiction or violating principles of natural justice.

Notable Case on Revision Petition:

In the case of Kashi Nath Pandey v. State of Bihar[2], the Supreme Court of India explained the nature of a Revision Petition. The court highlighted that a Revision Petition is not an appeal and should not be treated as a rehearing of the case on merits. Instead, it serves to correct errors of jurisdiction or law apparent on the face of the record, which would have resulted in a grave injustice if not corrected.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, both Revision Petition and Review Petition are essential legal remedies available in various jurisdictions to address errors or miscarriages of justice in court decisions. They provide parties with the opportunity to seek redress when they believe that the original judgment contains mistakes or overlooks crucial aspects of the case.

The Revision Petition allows parties to approach a higher court or an appellate court to seek a broader review of the lower court’s decision. It is filed on grounds of grave errors of law, procedural irregularities, or jurisdictional issues. The primary objective of a Revision Petition is to ensure justice is served and to correct any serious errors that might have occurred in the lower court’s order.

On the other hand, the Review Petition is filed before the same court that delivered the original judgment. Its purpose is to point out specific errors or omissions in the judgment, such as errors on the face of the record or the discovery of new and important evidence. The scope of a Review Petition is narrower compared to a Revision Petition, and its objective is to seek reconsideration of specific aspects of the original judgment.

It is crucial for litigants to be aware of the specific grounds and procedures for filing Revision Petitions and Review Petitions in their respective jurisdictions. The grounds for filing these petitions may vary, and there are usually strict time limits within which they must be filed. Additionally, both remedies are subject to specific rules and regulations that must be followed to ensure their effectiveness.

Overall, Revision Petition and Review Petition play vital roles in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and upholding the principles of justice. They empower parties to seek a fair and accurate resolution to their legal disputes and contribute to the overall goal of ensuring a just and equitable legal system.

REFERENCE

[1] https://lawplanet.in/bandhua-mukti-morcha-vs-union-of-india/

[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1705747/

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version