Review petition is an application made to the same court that passed a decree or order, seeking reconsideration of its own decision on limited grounds such as discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. Under Indian law, review is governed by Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the power is also constitutionally vested in the Supreme Court under Article 137.
Legal definition
Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides the substantive basis for review:
Section 114 — Review: Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved — (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
Order XLVII Rule 1 reiterates these grounds and adds that a review application shall be filed without unreasonable delay. Under Article 137 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145.
How courts have interpreted this term
Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib [(1975) 1 SCC 674]
The Supreme Court held that the underlying object of Section 114 is neither to enable the court to write a second judgment nor to give a second innings to the party who lost the case. A review is not an appeal in disguise. The power of review is confined to correcting patent errors of law or fact and not for rehearing or re-appreciation of the entire case.
Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Governor of Delhi [(1980) 2 SCC 167]
The Court held that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. The finality of a judgment will not be reconsidered except where a glaring omission or patent mistake has crept in by judicial fallibility. An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident — it should not require elaborate argument to establish.
Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715]
The Supreme Court clarified that "error apparent on the face of the record" means an error that is evident and obvious without requiring any examination or argument to establish it. A decision on a debatable point of law or fact is not an error apparent on the face of the record.
Why this matters
Review jurisdiction is inherently limited, and understanding its narrow scope is essential for any litigant or practitioner. The courts have consistently emphasized that a review petition is not a substitute for an appeal. It cannot be used to rehear or re-argue the case on merits, re-appreciate evidence, or seek a different conclusion on a question that was already considered and decided.
For practitioners, the three grounds for review must be kept distinct. First, discovery of new and important evidence requires the applicant to demonstrate that the evidence could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence — mere negligence in not producing available evidence does not qualify. Second, error apparent on the face of the record must be a self-evident mistake, not a debatable point of law. Third, "any other sufficient reason" has been narrowly construed by courts and does not include mere dissatisfaction with the reasoning of the judgment.
The limitation period for filing a review petition is 30 days from the date of the decree or order sought to be reviewed, under Article 124 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the Supreme Court, the review petition must be filed within 30 days of the date of judgment under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
Related terms
Related remedies:
Related concepts:
Frequently asked questions
What are the grounds for filing a review petition?
A review petition can be filed on three grounds under Section 114 CPC: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not available at the time of the original decision; (ii) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) any other sufficient reason. The third ground has been narrowly construed by courts and cannot be used to rehear the case.
Is a review petition heard in open court or in chambers?
Under Order XLVII Rule 3, a review application is ordinarily disposed of by circulation, without oral arguments, unless the court specifically directs otherwise. In the Supreme Court, review petitions are typically decided in chambers by the same bench that pronounced the original judgment, unless the court orders a hearing in open court.
What is the limitation period for filing a review petition?
The limitation period is 30 days from the date of the decree or order sought to be reviewed under Article 124 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This period runs from the date of the decision, not the date of knowledge of the error.
Can a review petition be filed against an interlocutory order?
Yes. Section 114 permits review of both decrees and orders. An interlocutory order can be reviewed if it falls within the three specified grounds. However, courts exercise restraint in reviewing interlocutory orders, as they can typically be modified through fresh applications or challenged through other remedies.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.