Scope of Review Petition Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
A party seeking review of a judgment under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 must strictly bring its case within the specified grounds. The provision permits review upon discovery of new and important matter which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The jurisdiction is not intended to correct erroneous decisions but to rectify a patent mistake that does not require any elaborate argument to establish.
Courts consistently hold that review is not an appeal in disguise and the merits of the case cannot be reargued. The power is exercised sparingly and only where a manifest error stares the court in the face without any need for a long-drawn process of reasoning. The listed cases, including Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., illustrate how the supervisory and review jurisdictions are distinct and how the scope of review remains confined to the narrow grounds enumerated in the rule.
The leading cases
12 judgments · 12 Supreme Court · most-cited first
What LexPilot's research engine returns for this question, ranked by court and how often each judgment has been cited since. Read the full judgment before you rely on a holding.
- 1
B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.
2003 INSC 179Supreme Court · 2003cited 11,973 times
The High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings, FIR, or complaint in matrimonial disputes even for non-compoundable offences under Section 498A and 406 IPC.…
- 2
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another
2012 INSC 419Supreme Court · 2012cited 7,921 times
The inherent power of the High Court under s. 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings is distinct from the power of compounding under s. 320; s. 320 does not limit or restrict s. 482. The High Court may quash…
- 3
Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr
2008 INSC 948Supreme Court · 2008cited 6,710 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant. The Court held that, on an overall view of the facts and keeping in mind the compromise decree and the principle in B.S.…
- 4
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors.
2006 INSC 216Supreme Court · 2006cited 6,553 times
The appeal was disposed of in favour of the State. The Supreme Court held that there is no fundamental right to regularization or permanent absorption for employees engaged on daily wages, temporarily, or…
- 5
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Ors.
2007 INSC 1243Supreme Court · 2007cited 3,669 times
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that an aggrieved person has no right to insist on investigation by a particular agency like the CBI; he can only claim a proper investigation. The Court elaborated on…
- 6
State of Haryana and Ors. etc. etc. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Another etc. etc.
1992 INSC 357Supreme Court · 1992cited 2,700 times
The Court dismissed the contempt petition and interlocutory applications. The statement of fact in a newspaper report is hearsay and inadmissible without proof by evidence aliunde. The applicant failed to discharge the…
- 7
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others
2010 INSC 428Supreme Court · 2010cited 2,516 times
1. A secured creditor is not required to exhaust remedies against the principal borrower before proceeding against the guarantor under the SARFAESI Act; the notices and application filed by the bank cannot be faulted…
- 8
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
1994INSC283Supreme Court · 1994cited 2,240 times
The Supreme Court held that judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process, not the merits. While the government has freedom of contract, decisions must be free from arbitrariness, bias…
- 9
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others
2021 INSC 253Supreme Court · 2021cited 2,233 times
Police has a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences; courts must not thwart investigation save in exceptional cases. Blanket "no coercive steps" orders without reasons are impermissible and hamper…
- 10
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors.
2002 INSC 148Supreme Court · 2002cited 2,152 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's bail order, and cancelled the bail. The High Court committed a manifest error by granting bail without cogent reasons, ignoring the subsequent FIR and…
- 11
Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. v. Radhika and Anr.
2011 INSC 797Supreme Court · 2011cited 2,039 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the prosecution. The Court held that while the offence under Section 354 IPC is compoundable, the offence under Section 394 IPC is…
- 12
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors.
2003 INSC 374Supreme Court · 2003cited 1,894 times
The amendment in Section 115 CPC does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court's power to issue a writ of certiorari and its supervisory jurisdiction…
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between an appeal and a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC?
A review petition is not an appeal in disguise. An appeal allows a higher court to re-examine the merits of a decision, while a review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to correcting a patent error apparent on the face of the record or considering new evidence that could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. The court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its view merely because another conclusion is possible.
What constitutes an 'error apparent on the face of the record' for a review petition?
An error apparent on the face of the record must be a glaring, obvious mistake that requires no elaborate reasoning to detect. It is not an error that has to be fished out through a long-drawn process of arguments on points of law or fact. The judgment in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. clarifies that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct, and a review cannot be used to correct a merely erroneous decision.
Can a review petition be filed on the ground of discovering new evidence after the judgment?
Yes, but only if the party demonstrates that the new evidence is of such a nature that it was not within their knowledge despite the exercise of due diligence at the time the decree was passed. The court will examine whether the evidence is truly new and important, and whether its non-production earlier was not on account of any lack of diligence by the applicant.
Free trial · Research assistance, not legal advice — always read the judgment before you rely on it.
More on civil procedure & property
- Interim Injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Specific Performance of an Agreement to Sell Immovable Property
- Rejection of Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Amendment of Pleadings After Commencement of Trial (Order 6 Rule 17 CPC)
- Condonation of Delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Adverse Possession: Ingredients, Hostile Plea and Use as a Sword
- Eviction of Tenant on Ground of Bona Fide Requirement
- Land Acquisition Compensation and Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act