A Comprehensive Guide to Review Petitions in Indian Law
For Practicing Advocates
1. Introduction
A Review Petition is a vital procedural mechanism available under Indian jurisprudence that allows a court to re-examine, correct, and amend its own judgment, order, or decree. In the hierarchy of legal remedies, an appeal challenges a decision before a superior forum, whereas a review is addressed to the same judge or bench that delivered the original judgment.
When is it used?
Under the adversarial system, finality of litigation is a cornerstone. However, human fallibility necessitates a safety valve. A review petition is invoked not as a matter of routine appeal in disguise, but strictly when there is a glaring omission, a patent error on the face of the record, or the discovery of new and important matter/evidence that was not within the knowledge of the petitioner despite the exercise of due diligence during the original proceedings.
In criminal matters, Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)—which corresponds to the erstwhile Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)—bars the Criminal Courts from altering or reviewing their judgments once signed, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. However, the Supreme Court of India possesses inherent review powers under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, read with Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, applicable to both civil and criminal proceedings (subject to strict limitations in criminal cases, usually restricted to curative petitions or review against death sentences). For civil matters, Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) comprehensively govern the procedure.
2. Legal Framework
Practicing advocates must anchor their review petitions within the statutory parameters:
Civil Proceedings: Section 114 CPC: Confers the substantive right of review, allowing any person aggrieved by a decree or order to apply for a review to the court that passed it, under conditions prescribed by the rules. Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC: Outlines the specific grounds: (a) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced at the time the decree was passed; (b) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (c) "Any other sufficient reason" (which judicial interpretation restricts to reasons analogous to the first two). Constitutional & Criminal Jurisdiction: Article 137 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or rules made under Article 145. Article 226 of the Constitution of India: High Courts possess inherent review powers flowing from their status as Courts of Record, guided broadly by the principles enshrined in Order XLVII CPC. Section 430 of BNSS, 2023: Reiterates the bar on criminal courts altering judgments post-signing (barring clerical corrections), ensuring that substantive criminal reviews are channeled primarily through constitutional courts or specific statutory provisions where applicable.
3. Key Components of a Review Petition
A professionally drafted Review Petition must meticulously contain the following components:
Cause Title: Properly formatted, indicating the original case number, parties, and the specific judgment/order sought to be reviewed.
Statement of Jurisdiction: Citing Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, Article 137 of the Constitution, or relevant High Court rules.
Limitation Statement: Explicitly stating that the petition is filed within the prescribed limitation period (typically 30 days from the date of the judgment/order under the Limitation Act, 1963). If delayed, a detailed application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit must be annexed.
Grounds for Review: The core of the petition. Must clearly point out:
The exact paragraph, page, or line of the judgment containing the error. How the error is "apparent on the face of the record" (requiring no elaborate argument or long-drawn process of reasoning). Any material evidence discovered subsequently, backed by proof of due diligence.
No Alternative Remedy / Previous Proceedings: A declaration stating whether any appeal or prior review has been filed against the impugned order.
Prayer Clause: Seeking setting aside/modification of the specific portion of the judgment/order.
Affidavit: Sworn by the petitioner or authorized representative, verifying the contents of the review petition.
Certificate by Advocate: A mandatory certificate stating that the review is based on restricted, valid grounds and is not filed merely to delay proceedings or reargue the case.
4. Standard Format/Template
```text IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA / HIGH COURT OF CIVIL / CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL / CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2024 IN CIVIL / CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF: [Name of Petitioner] ... Petitioner / Review Applicant VERSUS [Name of Respondent] ... Respondent
TO, THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (OR HIGH COURT OF )
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVENAMED:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
THAT the Petitioner above-named has filed the instant Review Petition under Article 137 of the Constitution of India read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [and/or relevant High Court Rules], seeking review of the judgment and final order dated passed by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Appeal No. of 2023, whereby the appeal filed by the Respondent was allowed.
THAT the Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court within the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days from the date of the judgment sought to be reviewed (the certified copy was obtained on ).
THAT the Petitioner submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated , inasmuch as:
a. This Hon'ble Court, while holding in Paragraph 15 that [insert finding], inadvertently failed to consider the statutory mandate of Section _ of the Act, which was specifically pleaded and argued during the hearing. b. The reliance placed by this Hon’ble Court upon the judgment reported as (2020) X SCC XXX is per incuriam, as a larger bench judgment on the exact point reported in (2018) Y SCC YYY directly held to the contrary, which escaped the attention of the Bench due to inadvertence.
THAT the aforesaid error is self-evident and does not require any elaborate argument or deep-seated inquiry to establish. Had this statutory provision and binding precedent been considered, the final outcome of the judgment would have been fundamentally different in favor of the Petitioner.
THAT the Petitioner has not filed any other review petition or appeal against the judgment/order sought to be reviewed, except for the review sought herein.
PRAYER In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: A. Allow the present Review Petition and recall/modify the judgment and order dated passed in Civil Appeal No. of 2023 to the extent of correcting the error apparent on the face of the record; B. Pass any such further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
DRAWN BY: FILED BY: [Name of Advocate] [Name of Advocate-on-Record / Advocate for the Petitioner Advocate] Dated: Place:
CERTIFICATE BY ADVOCATE I, [Advocate Name], counsel for the Petitioner, do hereby certify that the accompanying Review Petition is restricted to the grounds permitted under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC / Article 137 of the Constitution, and that no scandalous or irrelevant matter has been introduced. This review is filed bona fide and not for the purpose of delaying execution or proceedings.
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
AFFIDAVIT I, [Petitioner Name], S/o, D/o , aged about years, residing at , do hereby solemnly affirm and state as on oath as under:
That I am the Petitioner abovenamed and am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case; hence, I am competent to swear this affidavit.
That the contents of the accompanying Review Petition running from paragraphs 1 to _ are true and correct to my knowledge derived from the records of the case, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Deponent. VERIFICATION: Verified at [Place] on this day of 2024, that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct. Deponent. ```
5. Important Points to Remember for Advocates
Circulation without Oral Hearing: In the Supreme Court of India, Review Petitions are ordinarily considered “in circulation” by way of Chamber Hearing without any oral arguments, unless a specific request for an open court hearing is granted by the Bench (which is exceptionally rare, usually reserved for death penalty cases under Order XLVII Rule 5 of Supreme Court Rules). Same Judge/Bench Rule: As far as practicable, the review petition must be placed before the same combination of judges who authored the original judgment. If a judge has retired or is unavailable, the matter goes to a bench comprising the available judge and a newly assigned judge. Restricted Scope: A review is not an appeal in disguise. A mere possibility of a different view on re-appreciation of evidence is not a ground for review. Curative Petition as the Last Resort: If a review petition is dismissed, a curative petition can only be filed under very exceptional circumstances (such as a violation of principles of natural justice) as laid down by the Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002).
6. Common Mistakes to Avoid
Filing an "Appeal in Disguise": Drafting the review petition as if arguing an appeal—challenging the correctness of the decision on merits, re-arguing facts, or attempting to re-litigate settled points.
Ignoring Limitation: Failing to calculate the limitation period accurately (30 days from the date of judgment/order, excluding the time taken for obtaining certified copies if applicable) and omitting a formal condonation of delay application.
Vague Grounds: Using generic phrases like "the judgment causes grave injustice" without pointing to a specific error apparent on the face of the record or a per incuriam finding regarding a binding precedent or statutory provision.
Omission of Advocate's Certificate: Forgetting to attach the mandatory certificate stating that the review is restricted to permissible grounds.
Raising Fresh Pleas: Introducing entirely new facts, documents, or legal arguments that were never pleaded or argued during the original trial or appellate hearing, without meeting the strict "due diligence" threshold under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
7. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. Can a review petition be filed against an interim order?
Ans: Yes. Section 114 and Order XLVII CPC apply to "any decree or order." Therefore, review petitions are maintainable against interim orders, provided the statutory conditions (error apparent, new evidence, etc.) are fulfilled. However, courts discourage reviews of interlocutory orders unless they cause irreparable miscarriage of justice.
Q2. Is oral argument permitted during the hearing of a Review Petition?
Ans: In the Supreme Court, review petitions are considered in circulation in the judge's chamber without oral hearings, unless the court specifically directs an open court hearing. In High Courts, practice varies, but oral submissions are occasionally permitted if the court deems it necessary upon perusing the petition.
Q3. What is the difference between an Appeal and a Review?
Ans: An Appeal is a statutory right to challenge a decision before a superior court, allowing a full re-appreciation of facts and law. A Review is an application made to the same court and same judge(s) who delivered the judgment, restricted strictly to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, addressing overlooked statutory provisions, or considering newly discovered evidence.
Q4. Can new documents be introduced in a Review Petition?
Ans: Generally, no. New documents can only be introduced if the petitioner proves that despite the exercise of due diligence, those documents were not within their knowledge or could not be produced at the time the original judgment was passed.
Q5. What happens if a Review Petition is dismissed? Can another review be filed?
Ans: No. Second review petitions are strictly barred under Indian law. Once a review petition is dismissed, the remedy of review is exhausted. The aggrieved party's subsequent legal recourse, if any, is limited to a Curative Petition (in the Supreme Court under extraordinary circumstances) or special leave/writs where applicable.