School Of Law

BALLB
Academic Year 2024-25
BA LLB 3st Year Semester 5

Assignment Type: Individual

Topic: Reference, Revision and Review

Name: Akshay Narayan Singh Rawat

Enrolment Number: 06951103821
Batch: 2021-2026
Introduction
The Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 is a key piece of legislation that governs the
procedure for the administration of civil justice in India. Among the various provisions of the
CPC, the concepts of reference, review, and revision play a significant role in ensuring that
judgments are fair and just. These provisions provide avenues for challenging decisions,
correcting errors, and ensuring that justice is appropriately administered.
While reference and review relate to the process of challenging a lower court’s decision in
certain circumstances, revision provides a way for higher courts to oversee the functioning of
lower courts and correct errors of law or procedure. The CPC outlines specific mechanisms
for these processes to ensure that the judicial system functions efficiently and that judicial
errors do not go uncorrected.
This write-up will explore reference, review, and revision under the CPC in detail, focusing
on their legal framework, the conditions for their application, and the role they play in
preserving justice. By analyzing the provisions under the CPC, we can better understand how
the legal system allows for the correction of errors and the protection of parties from unjust
decisions.

Reference under the CPC

The concept of reference under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is addressed in Section
113 of the Code. Reference occurs when a lower court is confronted with a matter that it
considers to be of significant importance or requires clarification, and it seeks the opinion or
guidance of a higher court. A reference may also be made in situations where the lower court
has doubts about the correctness of its own judgment or where a question of law arises that
requires authoritative interpretation.
Section 113 of the CPC provides that a subordinate court may make a reference to the High
Court if it is of the opinion that a matter of great importance or law has been raised. The High
Court may then either answer the question raised or make a final determination, thereby
guiding the lower court on how to proceed. The reference is typically based on an issue of
law, but in some cases, it may also involve the facts if they are intricate or complex.
The reference procedure is intended to resolve legal uncertainties and avoid conflicting
judgments in lower courts. It plays a vital role in ensuring consistency in the application of
the law. Once a reference is made, the High Court is expected to provide its opinion, which is
binding on the lower court. It is a mechanism to ensure that judicial decisions align with the
law’s true interpretation.
In this sense, reference under the CPC is essential for clarifying legal points, preventing the
erroneous application of laws, and promoting uniformity across the judicial system.
The Conditions for Reference under the CPC
In order for a court to make a reference under the CPC, certain conditions must be met.
These conditions are outlined to ensure that references are made only in circumstances where
it is absolutely necessary for the administration of justice and where there is a genuine need
for higher judicial scrutiny.
1. Existence of a Question of Law: The first and most important condition for a
reference is that the lower court must be faced with a question of law that requires
clarification. The question should be substantial, involving an issue that is important
not just for the specific case but for the development of law in general.
2. Court’s Doubt or Uncertainty: The lower court must have a genuine doubt about the
legal issue in question. It must not be the case that the court simply disagrees with the
law or that there is a difference of opinion among the judges of the lower court. The
doubt must relate to an area of law that is complex or ambiguous, and where a higher
court’s guidance would be beneficial.
3. Judgment Pending: A reference can only be made when the lower court is in the
process of delivering its judgment or has already pronounced a judgment. If the case
has already been decided by the lower court, a reference can still be made if the
judgment is not final and pending appeal.
4. Importance of the Question: The legal question must be of public importance,
meaning that it is not merely of interest to the parties involved but may have wider
implications. The question should have the potential to affect the application of the
law in other cases as well.
5. Discretion of the Lower Court: Making a reference is at the discretion of the lower
court. The court must be convinced that the issue in question warrants a reference, and
the procedure should not be used for minor or inconsequential legal matters.
These conditions help ensure that the reference mechanism is used judiciously and only for
matters where legal uncertainty or significant implications arise.

The Procedure for Reference under the CPC

Once the conditions for making a reference under the CPC are met, a detailed procedure
must be followed. The process begins when the subordinate court identifies an important
legal issue and decides to seek guidance from a higher court, typically the High Court.
1. Making the Reference: The first step is for the lower court to frame the question of
law or issue that needs clarification. The court must clearly articulate the issue and the
reasons for the reference. This question will then be communicated to the High Court
for consideration.
2. Forwarding the Record: Along with the reference, the subordinate court must
forward the relevant records of the case, including the pleadings, evidence, and any
judgments or orders passed. These documents are necessary for the High Court to
fully understand the context of the case and the nature of the legal issue.
 3. High Court’s Response: Upon receiving the reference, the High Court will consider
the matter. The court may either answer the question directly or request additional
information. The High Court may hear arguments from the parties involved or from
counsel before giving its opinion. In some cases, it may refer the matter to a larger
bench if the legal issue is particularly complex.
4. Binding Nature of the Opinion: The opinion given by the High Court in response to
the reference is binding on the lower court. The subordinate court is required to
follow the guidance provided by the High Court in making its final decision.
5. Recording the Decision: Once the High Court’s opinion is received, the lower court
will incorporate the guidance into its judgment. If the matter is resolved, the lower
court will proceed to deliver its final verdict.
The procedure for making a reference ensures that complex legal issues are addressed in a
timely manner by the appropriate higher court, fostering uniformity and consistency in
judicial decisions.

Review under the CPC

The concept of review is an important procedural mechanism under the CPC that allows a
party to seek a re-examination of a judgment or order passed by a court. The provision for
review is provided in Order 47, which enables the court to correct its own mistakes or errors
in judgment, subject to certain conditions.
A review is typically sought when a party believes that there has been a significant error in
the judgment that warrants correction. This may include errors in law, fact, or procedural
mistakes. Unlike an appeal, which is concerned with reassessing the correctness of a
judgment, a review focuses on correcting genuine errors that affect the integrity of the
judgment itself.
The grounds for review are limited. A party seeking review must establish that:
1. Discovery of New Evidence: There is new and important evidence that was not
available at the time of the original trial, which could have affected the outcome of the
case.
2. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record: There is an obvious error in the
judgment that can be identified from the record, without requiring a detailed re-
examination of the case.
3. Other Sufficient Reasons: In rare cases, a review may be allowed if there are other
compelling reasons that justify the reconsideration of the decision.
Unlike references, reviews are typically made to the same court that passed the original
judgment, and the court has the discretion to either accept or reject the application for review.
If the review is allowed, the court may amend the original judgment or order.
Conditions for Review under the CPC
In order to apply for a review under the CPC, there are specific conditions that must be met.
The conditions ensure that reviews are not misused and that they serve their intended purpose
of correcting clear errors.
1. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record: One of the most important conditions
for review is that the error must be apparent on the face of the record. This means that
the error should be so obvious that anyone reading the judgment can immediately
recognize it without having to conduct a detailed inquiry.
2. New Evidence: A review can be sought if new and important evidence has emerged
that could not have been produced at the time of the original hearing. This new
evidence must be material to the outcome of the case.
3. Time Limit: The application for review must generally be made within a specific
period of time from the date of the judgment, typically 30 days. After this period, the
court may not entertain a review unless there are extraordinary circumstances.
4. No Appeal Pending: A review application cannot be filed if an appeal against the
same judgment is already pending in a higher court. Review is a remedy available to
correct errors within the same court, not to substitute an appellate process.
5. Discretion of the Court: The court has discretion in deciding whether to allow a
review. It will only entertain a review if it believes that the conditions outlined above
are met and that the mistake or error warrants correction.
These conditions ensure that review is not used as a tool for re-litigating cases but serves to
correct genuine errors.

Revision under the CPC

Revision under the CPC provides another layer of oversight in the judicial process, allowing
higher courts to intervene in the decisions of lower courts. Section 115 of the CPC allows a
party to seek revision if the lower court has made an error in exercising its jurisdiction.
Unlike review, which is focused on correcting errors within the same court, revision is
concerned with ensuring that the lower court has not exceeded its jurisdiction or committed a
procedural error. The power of revision is primarily vested in the High Court and is designed
to correct errors of law and procedure that have a bearing on the fairness of the trial.
The grounds for seeking revision are as follows:
1. Excessive or Absence of Jurisdiction: If the lower court has acted beyond its
jurisdiction or failed to exercise jurisdiction properly, a revision can be sought.
 2. Error of Law: Revision may also be used when the lower court has made an error of
law that has caused a miscarriage of justice.
3. Failure to Follow Procedure: If the lower court has failed to follow due procedure or
acted in a manner contrary to the principles of natural justice, revision may be
invoked.
The procedure for revision involves filing a petition in the High Court, which then examines
whether the lower court's decision requires intervention. If the revision is allowed, the High
Court may either modify the lower court’s decision or direct the lower court to reconsider the
matter in light of its ruling.

Conditions for Revision under the CPC

In order to seek revision under the CPC, specific conditions must be satisfied. These
conditions ensure that revision is used to correct errors that are truly detrimental to the
principles of justice and fairness.
1. Jurisdictional Error: The most common ground for revision is the excess or absence
of jurisdiction. If the lower court acts beyond its jurisdiction, the High Court may
intervene to correct such errors.
2. Error of Law: A revision can be sought if there is an error in law or legal procedure
that has affected the decision. The error must be apparent from the record and not
require a detailed factual inquiry.
3. Not an Appeal: A revision cannot be used as an appeal. It is not a review of the case
on its merits but is meant to address errors of law, procedure, or jurisdiction that affect
the fairness of the judgment.
4. Time Limit: Applications for revision must be filed within a reasonable time.
Typically, this means filing within a few months of the lower court’s decision,
although the exact timeframe may vary depending on the nature of the case.
5. Finality of Order: A revision can be filed only against final orders and decisions of
lower courts. Interlocutory orders are generally not subject to revision, although
exceptions exist in certain circumstances.

Conclusion: The Significance of Reference, Review, and Revision in the

CPC
In conclusion, the provisions for reference, review, and revision under the CPC form an
essential part of the legal framework for ensuring fairness and justice in civil proceedings.
These mechanisms provide multiple avenues for correcting errors, clarifying legal points, and
ensuring that judgments are consistent with the law. By allowing for judicial oversight, these
provisions safeguard the rights of parties involved in litigation and ensure that justice is not
only done but is seen to be done.
The reference process ensures clarity in complex legal matters, the review procedure allows
courts to correct their own mistakes, and revision enables higher courts to intervene in cases
where lower courts have exceeded their authority or committed errors of law. Together, these
mechanisms play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and
upholding the rule of law.
Through the use of reference, review, and revision, the CPC contributes to an efficient, fair,
and just legal system, providing checks and balances against the possibility of injustice
arising from procedural or legal errors.