Difference between Revision and Review

Revision and Review are the terms under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Revision involves a comprehensive re-examination and potential amendment of a decision by a higher court, aimed at rectifying errors or injustices. In contrast, Review focuses on evaluating the procedural correctness of a lower court’s decision by a higher court, without delving deeply into the case’s merits.

What is Revision?

Revisional competence over cases is granted to the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In other words, Revision refers to the process of going over something again, checking it for accuracy, and making sure it is accurate. The main goal of Section 115 is to prevent subordinate courts from acting in an arbitrary, unlawful, or irregular manner when carrying out their official duties. This clause gives the High Court the authority to ensure that decisions made in lower courts follow the law, respect jurisdictional limits, and advance justice. Ninety days is the window in which an application for revision can be filed. The most common grounds for amendment are issues related to jurisdiction. Errors of jurisdiction committed by lower courts can be corrected by the High Court as per the provisions of the act.

Key Features of Revision:

• By resolving jurisdictional inaccuracies, Section 115 gives the High Court the authority to intervene and guarantee the effective administration of justice while maintaining the integrity and equity of judicial procedures.
• The main goal of Section 115 is to prevent subordinate courts from acting in an arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, or irregular manner when carrying out their official duties.
• Ninety days is the window in which an application for revision can be filed. The most common grounds for amendment are issues related to jurisdiction.

What is Review?

Under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), judicial review is a crucial process that allows a matter to be re-examined by the same judge and in the same court as the initial decision or order. Order 47 of the code describes this substantive right and lays out the conditions and steps for starting a review. The word ‘review’ informally refers to a re-thinking or re-examination. The court may review its own ruling under Section 114 and make any necessary corrections. Although this authority is substantive, it must be used in accordance with the procedural guidelines outlined in Order 47. Conducting a review is a major undertaking that has to be well thought through. The purpose of the review process, which is ingrained in the legal system, is to correct and avoid injustices. A review application is a motion to the same court to recall and reconsider its previous judgment, unlike an appeal or revision to a superior court.

Key Features of Review:

• Review denotes a second thought or closer inspection. Section 114 gives the court the authority to review its own ruling and make any necessary corrections.
• Thirty days from the date of the judgment or decree is the only time frame within which an application for review may be filed. This deadline emphasizes how crucial it is to use the legal framework’s review mechanism as soon as possible.
• It is important to remember that the authority to review is granted by legislation, either explicitly or by necessary inference. Thus, the court’s ability to examine and address inequities satisfies its obligation to address serious and evident mistakes that it has made.

Difference between Revision and Review

Basis	Revision	Review
Meaning	Revision refers to a broader idea in which the High Court is in charge of reviewing and perhaps changing rulings made by lower courts. The High Court serves as the revision authority, and the scope of revision is wider, encompassing areas outside the purview of the same court or judge.	To evaluate, reexamine, or look again at a legal situation is to engage in the act of review. It is specifically a judicial reevaluation carried out by the same court and judge who issued the original ruling. The main goals of this procedure are to correct mistakes or take care of case details that were neglected.
Objective	Revision’s main objective is to resolve situations in which subordinate courts’ actions exhibit illegality, irregularity, or improper behavior. In its function as a revisional court, the High Court seeks to review documents pertaining to “any order” and rectify any errors or injustices found.	The main goal of a review is to fix any mistakes made in an order that could have an effect on a party’s interests. It is a procedure that allows the same judge and court to review their own ruling, guaranteeing the integrity and impartiality of the legal system.
Provision	The High Court’s revisional competence is derived legally from Section 115 of the CPC. It outlines the situations under which the High Court may amend decisions rendered by lower courts.	Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, lays out the legal basis for the review procedure. The factors and conditions that can lead to the initiation of a review are clearly defined in this section.
Authority	Revision may be started by an offended party or the High Court itself (suo motu). The revising authority is the High Court, which offers a higher court platform for case re-evaluation.	A party directly interested in the case usually initiates a review, which is handled by the same court and judge. The original judgment’s issuing court’s boundaries contain the power for review.
Timeline	Section 115 sets a ninety-day statute of limitations from the date of the relevant judgment or decree for the filing of a revision application.	Section 114 of the CPC does not provide a deadline for submitting a review application. Nonetheless, it is often anticipated that the application will be submitted within a fair amount of time following the judgment’s announcement.
Types of Errors Resolved	The High Court has the authority to make revisions, primarily in cases involving jurisdiction. It steps in when subordinate courts’ procedures exhibit any illegality, irregularity, or improper behavior.	There are a few reasons why a review may be conducted, such as the identification of fresh and significant information or proof, obvious inaccuracies or errors on the surface of the record, and other good causes. The main goal of a review is to fix mistakes in the first court’s ruling.
Court Engagement	The High Court’s engagement in the revision process adds an outside, higher-level judicial authority to the proceedings. The High Court, as the revision body, approaches the matter from a different angle.	The court that issued the ruling also handles the review internally. Examining the case again is the same judge who issued the initial decree.

Conclusion

“Review” refers to the process of giving something further thought or revisiting a legal matter. It is specifically a judicial reevaluation carried out by the same court and judge who issued the original ruling. The main goals of this procedure are to correct mistakes or take care of case details that were neglected. On the other hand, “revision” refers to a broader idea in which the High Court is in charge of reviewing and perhaps changing rulings made by lower courts. The High Court serves as the revision authority, and the scope of revision is wider, encompassing areas outside the purview of the same court or judge. Revision applications are only submitted to the High Court when the subordinate court’s order departs from the proper jurisdiction, even when review is carried out by the same court that issued the decree to correct mistakes or inaccuracies on the record.

Revision and Review-FAQs

Can we submit our revision and review at the same time?

Revision is possible after the case has been determined, but review is only possible after the order has been passed.

What is the suo-moto review?

The phrase “suo moto” (on its own motion) refers to the authority’s ability to address a situation without the other party’s request. This phrase usually refers to actions taken by a court without the parties’ previous application or motion.

Is a judicial review an appeal?

An administrative tribunal’s or another administrative decision-maker’s decision is examined in a judicial review. Whether the tribunal or decision-maker had the authority to make the decision it did is decided by a Supreme Court justice. It is not an appeal.

Which fundamental ideas underpin judicial review?

The two main judicial review guiding concepts are as follows: All other laws are superseded by the Indian Constitution, which is the highest law of the nation. Regarding all cases pertaining to constitutional amendment, the parliament lacks the authority to modify the fundamental clauses (the fundamental framework of the constitution) that are periodically determined by the Supreme Court of India.

What are the advantages of revision?

• It permits the original decision’s mistakes to be corrected.
• It is feasible to consider fresh proof or data that was not accessible in the first trial.
• It can give parties a way to express their displeasure with the first result.

Note: The information provided is sourced from various websites and collected data; if discrepancies are identified, kindly reach out to us through comments for prompt correction.