Appeals, Review & Revision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Civil appellate procedure is built on different levels of judicial correction. A first appeal under Section 96 ordinarily permits reconsideration of both facts and law; a second appeal under Section 100 is confined to a substantial question of law; review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII is a narrow self-corrective jurisdiction; and revision under Section 115 is a supervisory jurisdiction directed at specified jurisdictional errors where no appeal lies.
These remedies are not interchangeable. The most common examination and practice errors arise from treating review as a rehearing, revision as a second appeal, or a second appeal as an opportunity to reappreciate facts. This guide maps Sections 96–115 and Orders XLI–XLVII as one coherent appellate system.
- The right of appeal is statutory; it does not exist merely because a party is dissatisfied with a decision.
- Section 96 provides the principal appeal from an original decree, including an ex parte original decree; a consent decree is not appealable under Section 96(3).
- A first appeal is ordinarily a continuation of the suit and the first appellate court is the final court on facts, subject to further appeal only within Section 100.
- Section 97: failure to appeal a preliminary decree ordinarily prevents its correctness from being disputed later in an appeal from the final decree.
- Order XLI Rule 5: filing an appeal does not by itself stay execution.
- Order XLI Rule 27: additional evidence at appellate stage is exceptional, not a second opportunity to repair an evidentiary failure.
- Order XLI Rule 31: the appellate judgment must deal with the points for determination, decisions, reasons and relief; substantial compliance is judged from the judgment as a whole.
- Section 100: a second appeal lies only when the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, which ordinarily must be formulated.
- Section 104 + Order XLIII: interlocutory orders are appealable only where the Code expressly provides.
- Section 114 + Order XLVII: review is confined to discovery of qualifying new matter/evidence, error apparent, or another sufficient reason within the statutory doctrine; it is not an appeal in disguise.
- Section 115: revision is narrower than appeal and is concerned with specified jurisdictional errors in a case decided by a subordinate court where no appeal lies.
Original decree? Section 96 first appeal → appellate decree? Section 100 only if substantial question of law → specified interlocutory order? Section 104 / Order XLIII → patent self-corrective ground before same court? Section 114 / Order XLVII → non-appealable jurisdictional error by subordinate court? Section 115 revision.
Official Statutory Framework
India Code places the appellate provisions in Part VII of the Code. The official sequence includes Section 96 (appeal from original decree), Section 100 (second appeal), Section 104 (appealable orders), Section 107 (powers of appellate court), Section 114 (review) and Section 115 (revision). The procedural rules are primarily in Orders XLI to XLVII.
The official central text may be accessed through India Code — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. For the complete civil-suit lifecycle before appeal, see our CPC structure, jurisdiction and stages guide.
Part I — First Appeal under Section 96 CPC
Section 96(1): Appeal from Original Decree
Subject to express statutory exclusions, Section 96 permits an appeal from every decree passed by a court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorised to hear appeals from that court. The provision gives the unsuccessful litigant a statutory appellate remedy against the original decree.
Unlike a second appeal, a first appeal can ordinarily involve both questions of fact and questions of law. The appellate court may reappreciate evidence, examine the trial court’s factual findings and arrive at its own conclusions, but it must do so judicially and with reasons.
Why a First Appeal Is Called a Continuation of the Suit
The expression reflects the breadth of first appellate jurisdiction. The first appellate court is not confined to correcting pure legal error. Subject to pleadings, procedural rules and appellate limitations, it can reconsider factual and legal issues arising from the decree. This is why the first appellate court is frequently described as the final court on facts.
Section 96(2): Appeal from an Ex Parte Decree
An original decree passed ex parte is appealable under Section 96(2). Separately, the defendant may have a remedy under Order IX Rule 13 to seek setting aside of the ex parte decree on the grounds recognised by that Rule.
| Section 96(2) Appeal | Order IX Rule 13 |
|---|---|
| Challenges the decree through appellate jurisdiction | Seeks setting aside before the court which passed the ex parte decree |
| Focus can include legal/factual correctness of decree within appellate scope | Focuses on summons/non-appearance and “sufficient cause” within Rule 13 |
| Different statutory route | Different statutory route; procedural interaction must be checked carefully |
The Supreme Court in Deepesh Maheswari v. Renu Maheswari, 2026 INSC 306, recently reiterated that these are distinct jurisdictions rather than identical remedies.
Section 96(3): Consent Decree
No appeal lies from a decree passed with the consent of parties under Section 96(3). A challenge alleging that the compromise itself was unlawful, invalid or not genuinely consensual follows the specialised procedural framework governing compromise decrees rather than an ordinary Section 96 appeal against a consensual adjudication.
Section 97: Preliminary Decree Must Be Challenged in Time
Where a party aggrieved by a preliminary decree does not appeal from it, Section 97 ordinarily precludes that party from disputing its correctness in an appeal from the final decree. The rule is a powerful finality mechanism in suits such as partition, mortgage and accounts where preliminary and final decrees may occur at different stages.
Part II — Order XLI: Procedure in First Appeals
Rule 1: Memorandum of Appeal
An appeal is instituted through a memorandum setting out the grounds of objection to the decree. Good appellate drafting identifies discrete errors rather than reproducing the written statement or trial submissions. Grounds should distinguish errors of fact, law, procedure, evidence and relief.
The memorandum should be read with the decree and judgment under challenge, limitation requirements, court-fee rules and any applicable High Court rules.
Rule 5: Appeal Does Not Automatically Stay the Decree
The mere filing of an appeal does not operate as stay of proceedings under the decree. A party seeking protection must obtain an appropriate stay order. The appellate court examines the statutory conditions, including substantial loss, promptness and security where applicable.
This directly connects appellate practice with execution. For the enforcement side, see our Execution of Decrees under CPC — Sections 36–74 and Order XXI.
Rule 11: Dismissal at Admission Stage
Order XLI Rule 11 permits the appellate court to dismiss an appeal at the preliminary stage in accordance with the Rule. The appellate court must nevertheless exercise the jurisdiction judicially; summary disposal is not a licence to ignore substantial grounds that require appellate consideration.
Rule 22: Cross-Objections
A respondent who has not independently appealed may, within the statutory framework, support the decree and may also file cross-objections against the part of the decree adverse to the respondent. Cross-objections are a major appellate device because they allow the respondent to seek alteration of the decree without necessarily filing a separate appeal in the circumstances governed by Rule 22.
Rules 23, 23A, 24 and 25: Remand or Decide?
| Rule | Function |
|---|---|
| Rule 23 | Remand where suit was disposed of on a preliminary point and appellate conditions are satisfied |
| Rule 23A | Remand in other cases where retrial is considered necessary within the Rule |
| Rule 24 | If evidence is sufficient, appellate court may finally determine the suit instead of remanding |
| Rule 25 | Appellate court may frame issues and refer them for trial/findings while retaining the appeal |
Rule 27: Additional Evidence in Appeal
The general rule is that parties are not entitled to introduce fresh oral or documentary evidence at the appellate stage. Rule 27 creates carefully defined exceptions, including wrongful exclusion by the trial court, qualifying due-diligence circumstances, and situations where the appellate court itself requires the evidence to pronounce judgment or for another substantial cause within the rule.
In Gobind Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 INSC 211, the Supreme Court reiterated that additional evidence cannot be introduced as a matter of course or convenience. The statutory contingencies must be satisfied, and reasons must be recorded when additional evidence is admitted.
Rule 31: What a First Appellate Judgment Must Contain
Rule 31 requires the appellate judgment to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, reasons, and—where the decree is reversed or varied—the relief to which the appellant is entitled.
In Mallika v. R. Nallathambi & Ors., 2026 INSC 529, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that compliance with Rule 31 is mandatory but is assessed on substantial compliance, not ritualistic drafting. Where the first appellate court has independently reappreciated the evidence, addressed the controversy and given reasoned findings, the judgment is not automatically vitiated merely because the points were framed in broad language.
Rule 33: Broad Appellate Power
Rule 33 gives the appellate court broad power to pass or make the decree or order which ought to have been passed or made and to make further orders as the case may require, subject to the rule and settled limitations. The power exists to enable complete justice in the appeal; it is not an invitation to invent an unpleaded dispute or bypass natural justice.
Part III — Section 107: Powers of the Appellate Court
Section 107 authorises the appellate court, subject to prescribed conditions and limitations, to determine a case finally, remand it, frame issues and refer them for trial, and take additional evidence or require such evidence to be taken. These powers are exercised through the detailed Order XLI framework.
The section reinforces an important principle: an appellate court is not merely a court of error-correction in the abstract. It possesses defined judicial tools to resolve the dispute efficiently while respecting the procedural rights of both sides.
Part IV — Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC
Section 100 fundamentally changes the appellate inquiry. A second appeal does not lie because the High Court disagrees with a factual inference or believes another view of the evidence is possible. It lies where the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.
What Is a “Substantial Question of Law”?
The phrase does not mean every legal argument. A substantial question of law ordinarily arises where the legal issue materially affects the parties’ rights and requires authoritative determination, or where a lower court’s finding is attacked on a recognised legal ground such as perversity, application of a wrong legal test, disregard of material evidence in a legally significant way, or another error that legitimately transforms the controversy from pure fact into a substantial question of law.
Classic authorities such as Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari remain foundational.
Formulation of the Question Is Central
The memorandum of second appeal must precisely state the substantial question of law involved. If the High Court is satisfied that such a question exists, it formulates the question and ordinarily hears the appeal on that question. The respondent remains entitled to contend that no such substantial question is involved. The proviso permits hearing on another substantial question of law for recorded reasons where the statutory conditions are satisfied.
Concurrent Findings of Fact
Concurrent factual findings are not absolutely immune from second-appeal scrutiny, but the High Court cannot interfere merely because another factual view is possible. The appellant must bring the case within Section 100—for example, by showing perversity, absence of evidence, material illegality or application of an incorrect legal principle that gives rise to a substantial question of law.
Mallika v. R. Nallathambi, 2026 INSC 529, illustrates the contemporary approach: the first appellate court had reappreciated the evidence and the High Court found no substantial question of law. The Supreme Court found no basis to interfere merely to re-open the factual dispute.
Sections 100A, 101, 102 and 103
- Section 100A: contains a statutory bar on further appeal in the situations specified by the section, notwithstanding certain Letters Patent or other instruments.
- Section 101: reinforces that no second appeal lies except on the grounds mentioned in Section 100.
- Section 102: bars second appeals in the category of suits specified by the current statutory text; local amendments and monetary thresholds should be checked before practical reliance.
- Section 103: permits the High Court to determine an issue of fact in the limited statutory circumstances instead of automatically remanding.
Order XLII: Procedure in Second Appeals
Order XLII applies the rules of Order XLI, so far as may be, to appeals from appellate decrees. The procedural borrowing does not dilute Section 100: the second appeal remains confined to its substantial-question-of-law jurisdiction.
Part V — Appeals from Orders: Section 104 and Order XLIII
Not every interlocutory order is appealable. Section 104 and Order XLIII Rule 1 create the principal statutory list. Unless the Code or another law makes the order appealable, dissatisfaction with an interlocutory order does not itself create an appeal.
| Examples of Order XLIII Appeal Areas | Typical Provision |
|---|---|
| Return of plaint in specified circumstances | Order VII / Order XLIII Rule 1 |
| Specified injunction orders | Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4, 10 through Rule 1(r) |
| Specified receiver orders | Order XL Rule 1 / relevant Order XLIII clause |
| Specified remand orders | Order XLI Rules 23/23A within Order XLIII framework |
For the most common interlocutory appeal in civil practice, see our Temporary Injunction under CPC — Order XXXIX and Order XLIII Rule 1(r).
Section 105: Non-Appealable Interlocutory Orders
Section 105 broadly addresses how objections to non-appealable orders can be raised when appealing from the decree, subject to its terms. The provision prevents procedural fragmentation while preserving challenge to an interlocutory error that affects the decision of the case.
Part VI — Appeals to the Supreme Court: Sections 109 and 112
Section 109 operates subject to the Constitution and the applicable Supreme Court rules. In broad terms, the civil appellate route to the Supreme Court through certification concerns a substantial question of law of general importance which, in the High Court’s opinion, needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, subject to the constitutional and statutory framework.
Students should distinguish this certified civil appellate route from the Supreme Court’s special leave jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, which is constitutionally distinct and discretionary.
Part VII — Review under Section 114 and Order XLVII
Review is the court’s narrowly defined power to reconsider its own judgment or order. It is not a general second hearing before the same judge merely because one party believes the decision is wrong.
Who May Seek Review?
Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 identify the categories of persons and decisions in respect of which review may be sought. The rule includes decrees or orders from which an appeal is allowed but no appeal has been preferred, decrees or orders from which no appeal is allowed, and decisions on references from a Court of Small Causes, subject to the full statutory text.
The Three Review Grounds
Discovery of qualifying matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within knowledge or could not be produced when the decision was made.
A patent error apparent on the face of the record, not an error requiring a full rehearing and elaborate reasoning to establish.
Applied within the settled statutory doctrine; not an open-ended permission to reargue the merits.
Review Is Not an Appeal in Disguise
An error that requires extensive argument and competing legal analysis is ordinarily not converted into an “error apparent” merely because the review applicant strongly disagrees with the result. Classic authorities include Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury and Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati.
2026 Supreme Court: Clarification Cannot Become Review
In Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Kanika & Ors., 2026 INSC 188, the Supreme Court held that a court cannot use an application styled as “clarification” to make a substantive alteration to a concluded appellate judgment. If the proposed change redistributes liability or affects substantive rights, it is review in substance and must satisfy the strict review jurisdiction.
Subsequent Change in Law and the Explanation to Rule 1
The Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 specifically states that the fact that a decision on a question of law on which the judgment is based has been reversed or modified by a subsequent decision of a superior court in another case is not, by itself, a ground for review.
Part VIII — Revision under Section 115 CPC
Revision is not another appellate tier. Section 115 empowers the High Court to call for the record of a case decided by a subordinate court in which no appeal lies and to interfere within the jurisdictional grounds specified by the section.
Three Classic Jurisdictional Errors
- The subordinate court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law.
- The subordinate court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it.
- The subordinate court, in exercising jurisdiction, acted illegally or with material irregularity.
These grounds concern jurisdiction in the statutory sense. Revision does not permit the High Court to substitute its factual opinion merely because it might have assessed evidence differently.
The Proviso Restricts Interlocutory Revision
After the statutory amendments narrowing Section 115, the High Court ordinarily cannot vary or reverse an interlocutory order merely because the jurisdictional conditions in the main clause are alleged. The proviso significantly restricts interference unless the statutory final-disposal condition is satisfied. Authorities such as Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers explain this post-amendment restrictive approach.
Revision Does Not Automatically Stay Proceedings
Section 115 itself makes clear that a revision does not automatically operate as stay of the suit or proceeding unless the High Court grants stay. This parallels the appellate principle under Order XLI Rule 5: challenge filed is not the same as stay granted.
Part IX — Appeal vs Review vs Revision vs Article 227
| Feature | First Appeal | Second Appeal | Review | Revision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | Section 96 | Section 100 | Section 114 + Order XLVII | Section 115 |
| Forum | Authorised appellate court | High Court | Court which passed decision | High Court |
| Scope | Facts + law within appellate jurisdiction | Substantial question of law | Narrow statutory review grounds | Specified jurisdictional errors |
| Fresh appraisal of evidence? | Generally yes, with reasoned appellate analysis | Not merely because another factual view is possible | No general rehearing | No general factual reappreciation |
| Automatic stay? | No | No | No general automatic stay merely from filing | No; Section 115 expressly says so |
Article 227 of the Constitution is a distinct constitutional supervisory jurisdiction. It should not be treated as an unlimited substitute for a barred appeal or revision. The High Court’s supervisory power is concerned with keeping subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and correcting grave jurisdictional or procedural failure within settled constitutional limits.
Part X — Limitation: Appeal, Review and Revision
| Proceeding | General Limitation Act Position |
|---|---|
| Appeal under CPC to High Court | Article 116 generally prescribes 90 days, subject to the exact appellate route and applicable law |
| Appeal under CPC to another court | Article 116 generally prescribes 30 days |
| Review by court other than Supreme Court | Article 124 generally prescribes 30 days from decree or order |
| Civil revision under CPC | Article 131 generally prescribes 90 days for exercise of revisional power |
The table is a revision aid, not a substitute for limitation analysis. Special statutes, local amendments, High Court rules, exclusion of time for certified copies, condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act where applicable and the precise nature of the order can materially alter the calculation.
Part XI — How to Draft Grounds of First Appeal
- Identify the precise finding under challenge. Avoid saying merely that the judgment is “bad in law and facts”.
- Separate factual and legal errors. State whether the trial court misread evidence, ignored an admission, applied a wrong burden, misconstrued a document or used an incorrect legal test.
- Connect the error to the result. Harmless irregularity is not enough.
- Deal with every adverse issue necessary to the decree. Leaving one independent ground untouched may make reversal impossible.
- Challenge a preliminary decree when necessary. Section 97 should be checked immediately.
- State the relief precisely. Reversal, variation, remand, additional issue or other relief should correspond to the appellate ground.
- Seek stay separately if required. Do not assume filing the appeal protects against execution.
- Use Rule 27 sparingly. If additional evidence is genuinely required, plead the exact statutory gateway.
Part XII — How to Draft a Second Appeal
- Start with the substantial question of law. Do not first write twenty factual grounds and hope a legal question emerges later.
- Show why the question is substantial. Explain its legal significance and connection with the result.
- Identify the factual findings that are legally vulnerable. Perversity must be demonstrated, not merely asserted.
- Point to the wrong legal test, ignored legal principle or legally impermissible inference.
- Avoid requesting wholesale reappreciation of evidence. That is the clearest sign that the case may not fit Section 100.
- Draft the proposed question in neutral legal language. A question that merely assumes the appellant’s factual case is weak drafting.
Part XIII — How to Draft a Review Petition
- Identify the exact Order XLVII Rule 1 ground.
- If relying on new evidence, plead discovery, materiality and due diligence with dates.
- If relying on error apparent, identify the patent error in a few precise propositions rather than rearguing the entire case.
- Do not convert a disputed interpretation into an “obvious” error merely by repetition.
- Separate clerical correction under Sections 151/152 from substantive review.
- Explain limitation and any delay.
- State why the requested correction remains within review jurisdiction rather than appellate reconsideration.
Part XIV — How to Draft a Civil Revision
- Show that the impugned decision is a “case decided” for Section 115 purposes.
- Show that no appeal lies from the impugned decision.
- Identify the precise jurisdictional limb: excess, refusal, or illegal/materially irregular exercise of jurisdiction.
- Address the restrictive proviso applicable to interlocutory orders.
- Do not present ordinary factual disagreement as jurisdictional error.
- If stay is required, seek it expressly; filing revision does not create one.
- Distinguish the statutory revision from any proposed Article 227 challenge.
Part XV — Common Appellate Mistakes
- Assuming every adverse order is appealable.
- Failing to challenge a preliminary decree and attempting to reopen it after the final decree.
- Treating appeal filing as automatic stay.
- Repeating trial pleadings as grounds of appeal without identifying errors in the judgment.
- Seeking Rule 27 additional evidence simply because the trial evidence was weak.
- Asking for remand where the appellate court can decide the case on the existing record.
- Drafting a second appeal as a factual rehearing.
- Using “perversity” as a label without demonstrating how the finding is legally unsustainable.
- Filing review to repeat arguments already considered.
- Using “clarification” to seek a substantive change in the decree.
- Treating revision as an appeal on facts.
- Ignoring the Section 115 proviso governing interlocutory revision.
- Invoking Article 227 mechanically because the ordinary statutory remedy is unavailable.
Part XVI — Current Supreme Court Case Matrix
| Case | Provision | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Gobind Singh v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 211 | Order XLI Rule 27 | Additional evidence is exceptional; statutory contingencies must be satisfied and reasons recorded. |
| Mallika v. R. Nallathambi, 2026 INSC 529 | Order XLI Rule 31; Section 100 | First appellate court must independently evaluate the case; Rule 31 demands substantial compliance. Pure factual disagreement does not justify Section 100 interference. |
| Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kanika, 2026 INSC 188 | Review / Sections 151–152 | A “clarification” cannot alter substantive rights; a substantive change is review in substance and must satisfy strict review standards. |
| Deepesh Maheswari v. Renu Maheswari, 2026 INSC 306 | Section 96(2) / Order IX Rule 13 | Appeal from an ex parte decree and an application to set it aside operate in distinct jurisdictions. |
Frequently Asked Examination Questions
- Explain the nature and scope of a first appeal under Section 96 CPC.
- Can an ex parte decree be appealed?
- Distinguish Section 96(2) from Order IX Rule 13.
- What is the effect of failing to appeal a preliminary decree under Section 97?
- Does filing an appeal automatically stay execution?
- Explain cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22.
- Distinguish remand under Rules 23 and 23A from final disposal under Rule 24.
- When can additional evidence be produced under Order XLI Rule 27?
- What are the requirements of an appellate judgment under Rule 31?
- Explain the powers of the appellate court under Section 107.
- What is a substantial question of law under Section 100?
- Can concurrent findings of fact be interfered with in second appeal?
- What is the purpose of Order XLII?
- Which interlocutory orders are appealable under Section 104 and Order XLIII?
- What are the grounds of review under Order XLVII Rule 1?
- Why is review not an appeal in disguise?
- Can a subsequent judgment changing the law itself justify review?
- What are the grounds of revision under Section 115 CPC?
- Does filing a revision automatically stay the subordinate-court proceeding?
- Distinguish appeal, review and revision.
- Distinguish revision under Section 115 from Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction.
Exam Answer Toolkit
Identify the statutory remedy, state its scope, list the principal conditions and end with one core distinction.
Explain the provision and procedural Order, scope of jurisdiction, leading limitation on the power and one Supreme Court authority.
Identify decree/order → ask whether appeal lies → choose first/second/order appeal → test limitation/stay → identify permissible appellate scope → consider review/revision only if statutory grounds fit → state relief and forum.
One-Minute Revision
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| First appeal? | Section 96 + Order XLI |
| Ex parte decree appeal? | Section 96(2) |
| Consent decree appeal? | Barred by Section 96(3) |
| Preliminary decree not appealed? | Section 97 bar at final-decree appeal stage |
| Automatic stay on appeal? | No — Order XLI Rule 5 |
| Additional evidence? | Order XLI Rule 27 |
| Appellate judgment contents? | Order XLI Rule 31 |
| Second appeal? | Section 100 — substantial question of law |
| Second appeal procedure? | Order XLII |
| Appeal from orders? | Section 104 + Order XLIII |
| Review? | Section 114 + Order XLVII |
| Revision? | Section 115 |
| Review = appeal? | No — narrow statutory self-correction |
| Revision = factual rehearing? | No — jurisdictional supervision |
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a first appellate court reappreciate evidence?
Yes. A first appeal ordinarily permits reconsideration of facts and law. The appellate court must independently assess the material and give reasons, especially when reversing factual findings.
Can an ex parte decree be challenged in appeal?
Yes, Section 96(2) expressly permits an appeal from an original decree passed ex parte. Order IX Rule 13 provides a distinct remedy on its own statutory grounds.
Does filing a first appeal stay execution?
No. Order XLI Rule 5 requires a separate stay order; pendency of appeal by itself does not suspend the decree.
Can new documents be filed in first appeal?
Only within Order XLI Rule 27. Additional evidence is exceptional and the statutory conditions must be satisfied.
Can the High Court reappreciate evidence in second appeal?
Not merely because another factual view is possible. Section 100 requires a substantial question of law; factual perversity may generate such a question in an appropriate case, but routine factual reassessment is impermissible.
Can review correct an erroneous decision on merits?
Review is not a substitute appeal. The applicant must bring the case within the narrow Order XLVII Rule 1 grounds.
Can a later Supreme Court judgment automatically justify review?
No. The Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 says that subsequent reversal or modification of the legal proposition in another case is not by itself a review ground.
When does revision under Section 115 lie?
Broadly, where a subordinate court has decided a case from which no appeal lies and has committed one of the jurisdictional errors specified in Section 115, subject to the restrictive proviso and other statutory requirements.
Does filing a revision stay the case?
No. Section 115 expressly provides that revision does not operate as stay unless the High Court grants stay.
The CPC creates a carefully graduated system of correction. First appeal is broad; second appeal is law-focused; appeal from orders is enumerated; review is narrow self-correction; revision is jurisdictional supervision. A lawyer or student who first identifies the nature of the decision and then matches it to the correct statutory remedy avoids most appellate-procedure errors.
The current Supreme Court decisions reinforce the same discipline: first appellate courts must genuinely decide the appeal; additional evidence cannot be admitted casually; second appeals cannot become factual retrials; and a substantive alteration cannot be smuggled into a concluded judgment under the label of clarification.
Memory line: decree → Section 96 → appellate decree + substantial question of law → Section 100 → specified order → Section 104/Order XLIII → patent self-corrective ground → review → non-appealable jurisdictional error → revision.
Academic note: This article is for legal education and examination preparation. Appellate forum, pecuniary thresholds, State amendments, High Court rules, special statutes and limitation rules may alter the general CPC position. Current forum-specific law should be checked before professional reliance.