Reference, Review & Revision (ss.113–115, O.46–47) — CPC & Limitation Act Notes

Reference, Review & Revision (ss.113–115, O.46–47)

Three words that sound alike but do very different jobs. A trial judge unsure of a legal point asks the High Court (reference). A judge who has decided is shown a fresh document and re-looks at his own order (review). The High Court, seeing a lower court overstep its jurisdiction, steps in to correct it (revision). Getting these three apart is the classic Unit IV essay — and the examiner rewards a clean table.

The three remedies, side by side

All three are ways of correcting decisions without a full appeal. What separates them is who acts, on what ground, and before which forum.

• Reference (s.113, O.46) — a subordinate court, while a case is pending, refers a question of law (about the validity of an Act, or a genuine legal doubt) to the High Court for its opinion. The subordinate court is the mover; the High Court advises.
• Review (s.114, O.47) — the same court that passed the decree re-examines its own decision, on limited grounds: (1) discovery of new and important matter/evidence not available earlier despite due diligence; (2) a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (3) any other sufficient reason. The aggrieved party is the mover.
• Revision (s.115) — the High Court calls for the record of a case decided by a subordinate court in which no appeal lies, to correct a jurisdictional error — where the subordinate court (a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it, (b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction it had, or (c) acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction. Revision corrects errors of jurisdiction, not errors of fact or law on the merits.

Now the distinction as a table.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — which remedy fits?

Facts. A trial court decrees a small suit (no appeal lies). The losing party says the trial court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try it at all.

Rule. s.115 — the High Court may revise a decided case where the subordinate court exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it; review (s.114) is for the same court’s own error, and reference (s.113) is for a pending doubt.

Apply. The complaint is a jurisdictional defect in a decided case with no appeal — squarely s.115 revision, not review (different court’s error) and not reference (case is over).

Conclusion. The party files a revision in the High Court under s.115.

Section 115(1) CPC: “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.”

In Simple Terms: Revision is the High Court’s tool to keep lower courts inside their jurisdiction — it corrects who-could-decide errors, not the rightness of the decision on the facts.

Order 47 Rule 1(1) CPC: A person aggrieved may apply for review “(a) 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 … or (b) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or (c) for any other sufficient reason…”

In Simple Terms: Review lets the same judge re-open the decision only for a genuine new fact, an obvious error on the record, or a similarly strong reason — not for a mere change of mind.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Correcting a decision without a full appeal"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["REFERENCE (s.113): subordinate court asks High Court a legal question — case PENDING"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["REVIEW (s.114 / O.47): SAME court re-examines its own decree — new evidence / error on record"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["REVISION (s.115): High Court corrects a JURISDICTIONAL error — case DECIDED, no appeal"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

• [C-48] Major S.S. Khanna v Brig. F.J. Dillon (1964) — explained the scope of s.115 revision; it corrects errors of jurisdiction, not every error of law or fact.
• Board of Control for Cricket in India v Netaji Cricket Club (2005) — “any other sufficient reason” in O.47 r.1 means a reason analogous to the specified grounds; review is not an appeal in disguise.

Back to Top

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All CPC & Limitation Act topics