CPC Procedural Devices: Reference vs. Revision vs. Review

---

This article examines three procedural devices – Reference, Revision, and Review – under the CPC, which function as self-corrective and supervisory mechanisms to ensure uniformity, legality, and justice within the Indian judicial system.

Introduction

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is the procedural backbone of Indian civil law. While it lays down the manner in which civil rights are adjudicated, it also provides built-in checks to correct judicial errors.

Sections 113–115 and Orders 46 and 47 of the CPC create three vital instruments – Reference, Revision, and Review – which balance judicial independence with accountability. They embody the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium (“where there is a right, there is a remedy”) and safeguard against miscarriage of justice.

I. Reference (Section 113 and Order 46 CPC)

A reference is the process by which a subordinate court refers a question of law to the High Court for opinion when it entertains a serious doubt about the validity or interpretation of a statute.

Object:

To prevent subordinate courts from declaring laws invalid and to secure uniform interpretation of statutes.

When it may be made:

Under Section 113 CPC read with Order 46 Rule 1:

1. A question arises as to the validity of an Act, Ordinance, or Regulation;
2. The determination of the case depends upon such validity; and
3. The Act has not already been declared invalid by the High Court or the Supreme Court.

Effect:

The opinion of the High Court is binding on the referring court.

Case Law:

• Queen Empress v. Burah, (1878) 3 ILR Cal 63 (PC) – The Privy Council held that reference ensures hierarchical consistency in judicial interpretation.
• Raja Soap Factory v. S.P. Shantharaj, AIR 1965 SC 1449 : (1965) 2 SCR 800 – Only a subordinate court can initiate a reference; a party cannot demand it.

II. Revision (Section 115 CPC)

A revision empowers the High Court to supervise subordinate courts and correct jurisdictional errors where no appeal lies.

Object:

To prevent subordinate courts from acting ultra vires or failing to exercise jurisdiction vested in them.

Scope:

The revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate; the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb factual findings.

Conditions (Section 115):

1. Subordinate court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it;
2. Failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it; or
3. Acted with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction.

Judicial Interpretation:

• Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497 : (1964) 4 SCR 409 – The Supreme Court held that revision lies only for jurisdictional errors, not for mere mistakes on merits.
• Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185 : (1977) 4 SCC 137 – Section 115 aims to keep subordinate courts within jurisdictional bounds, not to correct every error.
• Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, AIR 1973 SC 76 : (1972) 3 SCC 185 – Revision cannot substitute for appeal; it corrects only jurisdictional irregularities.

Limitations:

After the 2002 Amendment, revision does not lie against interlocutory orders unless they finally dispose of the case.

III. Review (Section 114 and Order 47 CPC)

A review is the re-examination of a judgment by the same court that delivered it, allowing correction of apparent mistakes.

Grounds (Order 47 Rule 1):

1. Discovery of new and important evidence not within the applicant’s knowledge despite due diligence;
2. Error apparent on the face of the record;
3. Any other sufficient reason analogous to the above.

Who may apply:

A person aggrieved by a decree or order, who has not appealed or whose appeal has been disposed of, may seek review.

Judicial Interpretation:

• Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372 : (1964) 5 SCR 174 – An error that requires elaborate reasoning is not “apparent on the face of the record.”
• Chhajju Ram v. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 : (1922) 49 IA 144 – “Any other sufficient reason” must be analogous to discovery of new matter or error apparent.
• Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib, AIR 1975 SC 1500 : (1975) 1 SCC 674 – Review cannot be used for rehearing; it is limited to correcting manifest errors.

Essence:

Review embodies the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit – an act of the court shall prejudice no man. It ensures that obvious mistakes do not lead to injustice.

Comparative Table

Aspect	Reference	Revision	Review
Authority	Subordinate court to High Court	High Court over subordinate court	Same court revises its own order
Nature	Consultative	Supervisory	Reconsiderative
Initiator	Subordinate court	Aggrieved party	Aggrieved party
Purpose	Clarification of doubtful law	Correction of jurisdictional errors	Correction of apparent mistakes
Scope	Questions of law	Jurisdictional irregularity	Errors on record
Result	Opinion from High Court	Correction or confirmation	Modification or reaffirmation

Conclusion

The three procedural devices – Reference, Revision, and Review – form an integral part of the CPC’s corrective framework.

Reference promotes consistency in interpretation; Revision maintains judicial discipline among subordinate courts; and Review enables self-correction by the same court.

Together, they embody the principle of fairness and legality in civil adjudication. These mechanisms reaffirm that justice is a continuous process of refinement – ensuring that judicial errors, whether of law or fact, do not remain unremedied and that the rule of law prevails above all.

---

References (Citations):

1. Queen Empress v. Burah, (1878) 3 ILR Cal 63 (PC).
2. Raja Soap Factory v. S.P. Shantharaj, AIR 1965 SC 1449 : (1965) 2 SCR 800.
3. Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497 : (1964) 4 SCR 409.
4. Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185 : (1977) 4 SCC 137.
5. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, AIR 1973 SC 76 : (1972) 3 SCC 185.
6. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372 : (1964) 5 SCR 174.
7. Chhajju Ram v. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 : (1922) 49 IA 144.
8. Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib, AIR 1975 SC 1500 : (1975) 1 SCC 674.

---

Also read : Execution of Court Decrees: Processes and Legal Framework

#CPC #CivilProcedureCode #JudicialRemedies #IndianLaw #LegalResearch #HighCourt #Review #Revision #Reference #RuleOfLaw