Part VIII – Reference, Review and Revision

Section 113: Reference to High Court.—

Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, any Court may state a case and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court, and the High Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit:

Provided that where the Court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, and is of opinion that such Act, Ordinance, Regulation or provision is invalid or inoperative, but has not been so declared by the High Court to which that Court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court, the Court shall state a case setting out its opinion and the reasons therefor, and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court.

Explanation.—In this section “Regulation” means any Regulation of the Bengal, Bombay, or Madras Code or Regulation as defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), or in the General Clauses Act of a State.

Section 114: Review.—

Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved—

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.

Section 115: Revision.—

(1) 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

the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:

Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.

(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto.

(3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court.

Explanation.—In this section, the expression “any case which has been decided” includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding.

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

1. Relation between Section 113 and 115

Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1980 P&H 205: “…….no revision petition is maintainable against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, dismissing the plaintiff’s application under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because it is for the trial Court to state a case and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court. Since the trial Court was not satisfied that the case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance etc., the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, will not direct the Court to refer the same to the High Court……”

2. Scope of Review

Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663: “It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.”

3. Scope of Revision in regard to interim orders

Mohd. Rais Khan v. Naseeb Ullah Khan, AIR 2006 All 166 : “The proviso, which substituted earlier proviso of Central Act introduced in the year 1999 (w.e.f. 01-07-2002) as reproduced above, mandates that no revision shall be cognizable by the High Court unless the order challenged is not to the effect of finally disposing of the suit or other proceeding. The substituted provision of the State amendment under Section 115 C.P.C. also contemplates in sub-rule (3) clause (i) that superior court shall not under this section vary or reverse any order made except where the order if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding. It is in this view of the matter that this court in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) has held that an order of issue of notice on injunction application does not dispose of the suit. It also does not dispose of application either. In case the injunction application were to be rejected or allowed it would dispose of the application but such an order would be appealable and hence not open to revision. However, if an exparte injunction is not granted and only notice is issued on the injunction application it would not dispose of application as final orders in the matters are yet to be passed after inviting objections of the opposite party and the injunction application remains pending. The proviso as it now stands (after 1999 amendment) restrains the power of interference in revision to a situation where the case decided disposes of the suit or proceedings. While refusing exparte temporary injunction by merely issuing notice upon such application may amount to a case decided but the proviso restrains the power of the High Court and precludes it from interfering in revision in such a case as the order of exparte injunction would not have disposed of the injunction application or terminated the proceedings for temporary injunction. A revision against such an order is, therefore, not maintainable.”