PART VIII: REFERENCE, REVIEW AND REVISION
(These are distinct procedures from appeals)
Section 113: Reference to High Court
- Simplified: Allows a lower court (Subordinate Court) to refer a question of law to the High Court for its opinion when the lower court has reasonable doubt.
- When Applicable: Can be done during a suit or appeal where the decree is not subject to appeal, or during the execution of such a decree.
- Procedure:
- The Subordinate Court must entertain a reasonable doubt on a question of law or usage having the force of law.
- It can act on its own motion or on a party’s application.
- It draws up a statement of facts and the specific point of law/usage doubted.
- It refers this statement, along with its own opinion, to the High Court for decision. (See Order XLVI for procedural details).
- Proviso (Mandatory Reference on Validity of Law): Where a case involves a question about the validity of any Act, Ordinance, or Regulation (or any provision within them), and:
- Determining this validity is necessary for disposing of the case, AND
- The Subordinate Court is of the opinion that the Act/Ordinance/Regulation/provision is invalid or inoperative, BUT
- It has not already been declared so by the High Court to which it is subordinate, or by the Supreme Court,
- THEN, the Subordinate Court shall (must) state a case setting out its opinion and reasons, and refer it for the High Court’s opinion.
- Explanation: Defines “Regulation” for this section. Includes Bengal, Bombay, Madras Code regulations and regulations under the General Clauses Act. (State Amendments for AP, TN, Pondicherry add specific local regulations).
- Purpose: Allows lower courts to seek binding guidance from the High Court on doubtful legal questions, especially constitutional validity, ensuring uniformity and preventing conflicting decisions on law.
- Example (Doubt): A Munsiff’s court is hearing a non-appealable small cause suit. A complex legal question arises about the interpretation of a local customary law relevant to the case, on which there are conflicting old rulings. The Munsiff, having reasonable doubt, can refer the question to the High Court under Sec 113.
- Example (Validity): A Subordinate Judge believes a specific provision of a State Act, crucial to the case before them, violates the Constitution. The High Court/Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on it. The Judge must refer the question of validity to the High Court under the Proviso, stating their reasons for believing it to be invalid.
Section 114: Review
- Simplified: Allows a person aggrieved by a court’s decision to apply to the same court to reconsider or “review” its own judgment or order under specific conditions.
- Who Can Apply: Any person considering themselves aggrieved.
- When Applicable:
- (a) By a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by the CPC, but no appeal has been preferred (filed).
- (b) By a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by the CPC.
- (c) By a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes.
- Grounds for Review (Implied, Detailed in Order XLVII, Rule 1): The application is typically based on:
- Discovery of new and important matter or evidence that, despite due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced earlier.
- Some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
- Any other sufficient reason.
- Outcome: The Court which passed the decree/order may review it and make such order as it thinks fit (confirm, vary, or reverse its earlier decision). (See Order XLVII for procedural details).
- Example: A court passes a decree based on certain documents. After the decree, the losing party discovers a crucial document proving the first set was forged, which they couldn’t find earlier despite diligent search. Since no appeal has been filed yet, they can apply to the same court for a review of its judgment under Sec 114(a), presenting the new evidence.
Section 115: Revision
- Simplified: Grants the High Court the power to supervise subordinate courts by examining their records to correct certain types of errors, primarily jurisdictional ones, in cases where no appeal lies to the High Court.
- (1) Power of High Court: The High Court may call for the record of any case decided by a subordinate court from which no appeal lies to the High Court.
- Grounds for Intervention: If it appears that the subordinate court has:
- (a) Exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law (acted beyond its powers).
- (b) Failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested (refused to act when it had the power and duty).
- (c) Acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
- Order: The High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.
- Proviso (Limitation on Interfering with Interlocutory Orders – Added 1976): The High Court shall not vary or reverse any order made during a suit/proceeding (including an order deciding an issue), except where:
- (a) The order, if made in favour of the revision applicant, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceeding, OR
- (b) The order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.
- (2) Bar if Appeal Lies (Added 1976): The High Court shall not use its revisional power under this section to vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies (either to the High Court itself or to any court subordinate to it).
- Explanation (Added 1976): “Any case which has been decided” includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, during a suit or proceeding. (Clarifies that revision can apply to intermediate orders, subject to the Proviso).
- State Amendments (MP, Orissa, UP, WB): Several states have amended Sec 115, often conferring revisional powers on the District Court for lower value cases, sometimes changing thresholds, but generally retaining the core grounds for revision.
- Purpose: Provides a remedy against specific types of errors (mainly jurisdictional or serious procedural flaws) by lower courts in non-appealable cases or non-appealable interim orders causing significant prejudice. It’s a supervisory power, narrower than an appeal.
- Example (Jurisdiction Exceeded): A Civil Judge (Jr. Div) whose pecuniary jurisdiction limit is Rs 5 Lakhs entertains and decides a suit valued at Rs 10 Lakhs. This is exercising jurisdiction not vested by law. If no appeal lies directly to the High Court, the aggrieved party can file a revision petition under Sec 115(a).
- Example (Interlocutory Order – Proviso): During a suit, the trial court passes an order refusing to allow a crucial witness to be examined. This order does not finally dispose of the suit, but the party believes it causes irreparable injury as they cannot prove their case without this witness. They might file a revision under Sec 115, arguing condition (b) of the Proviso is met. The High Court has discretion whether to interfere.
