Published on: 01 September 2023 at 16:03 IST
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: BCCI V. Netaji Cricket Club (2005)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that review jurisdiction under aegis of Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not confers power of appeal to the court. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view.
- Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
- Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions.
- Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
- Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate.
- An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.
90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The words “sufficient reason” in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine “actus curiae neminem gravabit”.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
