Revision petition is a supervisory remedy by which the High Court exercises its power to examine whether a subordinate court has acted within its jurisdiction, correctly applied the law, or committed a material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Under Indian law, revisional jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court by Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and operates as a check on jurisdictional errors by subordinate courts in cases where no appeal lies.
Legal definition
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines the scope of revisional jurisdiction:
Section 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.
Following the 2002 amendment, Section 115(1) was modified to restrict revision to cases where the order of the subordinate court was made in a case decided (i.e., disposed of finally). Revision does not lie against interlocutory orders after this amendment. However, this amendment was not uniformly adopted by all states.
How courts have interpreted this term
Pandurang Ramchandra Mandlik v. Maruti Ramchandra Ghatge [(1996) 4 SCC 187]
The Supreme Court held that an erroneous decision on a question of law by a subordinate court, which has no relation to the question of jurisdiction, cannot be corrected by the High Court under Section 115 CPC. Revisional jurisdiction is confined to jurisdictional errors — the High Court cannot substitute its own view on questions of fact or law that the subordinate court had jurisdiction to decide.
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai [(2003) 6 SCC 675]
The Supreme Court distinguished between revision under Section 115 CPC and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court held that after the 2002 amendment restricting Section 115, interlocutory orders of subordinate courts could be challenged through writ petitions under Article 227, but such jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction or gross violation of principles of natural justice.
Welcome Hotel v. State of A.P. [(1983) 4 SCC 575]
The Supreme Court held that where a court having jurisdiction exercises it in an irregular manner due to a mistake of the parties, there is no ground for interference in revision. The irregularity must be a material one — a mere procedural error that does not affect the outcome is insufficient to invoke revisional jurisdiction.
Why this matters
Revision is not an appeal and cannot be treated as one. This fundamental distinction is critical for practitioners choosing the appropriate remedy. While an appeal allows the superior court to re-examine facts and law and substitute its own judgment, revision is limited to examining whether the subordinate court acted within its jurisdiction and in accordance with law. The High Court in revision cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its findings of fact.
For litigants, the practical significance of Section 115 lies in its role as a safety valve for jurisdictional errors. When a subordinate court assumes jurisdiction it does not possess, fails to exercise jurisdiction it does possess, or acts illegally in exercising its jurisdiction, Section 115 provides the remedy. The three grounds under Section 115(1)(a), (b), and (c) are exhaustive — the High Court cannot interfere on any other ground.
The 2002 amendment significantly curtailed revisional jurisdiction by confining it to cases that have been "decided" — i.e., finally disposed of. This means that orders passed during the pendency of a suit (such as orders on injunction applications, adjournments, or discovery) can no longer be challenged through revision. This amendment was intended to reduce the burden on High Courts and prevent piecemeal challenges to interlocutory orders. However, not all states have adopted this amendment in full, creating some variation in practice.
Related terms
Related remedies:
Related concepts:
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between revision and appeal?
A revision under Section 115 CPC is limited to examining jurisdictional errors by subordinate courts — whether the court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally in exercising jurisdiction. An appeal under Sections 96-108 CPC allows the appellate court to re-examine both questions of fact and law and substitute its own findings. Revision is supervisory; appeal is adjudicatory.
Can a revision petition be filed against an interlocutory order?
After the 2002 amendment to Section 115 CPC, revision generally does not lie against interlocutory orders — it is confined to cases that have been finally decided. However, this amendment was not uniformly adopted across states. Where Section 115 does not apply, interlocutory orders may be challenged through writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
What is the limitation period for filing a revision petition?
The limitation period for filing a revision under Section 115 CPC is 90 days from the date of the order sought to be revised, under Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
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.