Section 114 CPC (Review of Judgment): Order 47 Grounds, Limitation and Procedure

Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) allows a person aggrieved by a decree or order of a civil court to ask the same court to review its judgment. It applies where an appeal is allowed but has not been filed, where no appeal is allowed at all, and where the decision was given on a reference from a Court of Small Causes. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC limits review to three grounds: discovery of new and important matter or evidence that could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, “some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record”, and “any other sufficient reason”.

The application must be made within thirty days from the date of the decree or order (Article 124 of the Limitation Act, 1963), it is heard by the judge who passed the decree if he is still attached to the court and is not prevented by absence or other cause for six months after the application (Order XLVII Rule 5), and it cannot be used to argue the case again. In the Supreme Court’s words in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna (2025), a review petition “has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise”.

Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi – October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date. The CPC is quoted from India Code (as on 10 January 2026) and its official Hindi text, the Limitation Act from India Code (as on 30 August 2026), the Court-Fees Act from India Code (as on 8 July 2026) with the Delhi Amendment Acts of 2012 and 2026, the BNSS from India Code (as on 6 October 2025), the Constitution from the Legislative Department’s 2026 edition, and the Supreme Court Rules and judgments from the Supreme Court’s official copies.

Section 114 CPC: the text

Section 114 sits in Part VIII of the Code, headed “Reference, Review and Revision”, between Section 113 (reference to the High Court) and Section 115 (revision). It reads:

“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 114 creates the right; the grounds and procedure are in Order XLVII (“Review”) of the First Schedule, Rules 1 to 9. Both decrees and orders can be reviewed; an “order” is “the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree” (Section 2(14)).

A signed judgment is normally final in the court that gave it. Order XX Rule 3 says that a judgment, “when once signed, shall not afterwards be altered or added to, save as provided by section 152 or on review”. Section 152 covers only “Clerical or arithmetical mistakes” and errors “from any accidental slip or omission”, which the court may correct “at any time”. Anything more needs a review under Section 114.

Order XLVII Rule 1: the full rule

Order XLVII Rule 1(1) repeats the three categories of Section 114 and adds the grounds. After the categories it reads: “and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.”

Sub-rule (2) deals with an appeal filed by someone else: “A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review.”

The Explanation, inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 1 February 1977, reads: “The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.” The India Code text as on 10 January 2026 shows no later amendment to Order XLVII and no State amendment printed under it.

Who can apply for review, and against what

Any “person considering himself aggrieved” by the decree or order may apply, to the court that passed it. The decree or order must fall in one of the three categories below.

1. Appealable, but no appeal filed

Clause (a) covers a decree or order “from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred”. A party who could appeal may therefore choose to apply for review instead, but the words “no appeal has been preferred” mean that a party who has himself filed an appeal against the decree is not within clause (a). Where another party has appealed, Rule 1(2), quoted above, decides whether review is still open.

2. Not appealable at all

Clause (b) covers a decree or order “from which no appeal is allowed by this Code”. An appeal lies only where the law gives one: Section 104(1) allows appeals from the orders listed there and in the rules, “and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other orders”. Orders outside that list are not appealable, and review under clause (b) is one of the remedies available against them.

3. A decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes

Clause (c) covers “a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes”, that is, the decision of the court to which a Court of Small Causes referred a question. The person aggrieved by that decision applies for review to the court that gave it.

The three grounds of review

The grounds are fixed by Order XLVII Rule 1 and nothing outside them will do. In Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius (1954), the Supreme Court said that “the scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal” and, speaking of the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure, which it described as “similar in terms to Order XLVII, rule I” of the CPC, that the court of review “has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein”. Malleeswari v. K. Suguna (2025) restated the three grounds in paragraph 17.

Ground 1: new and important matter or evidence

The applicant must show “the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made”. Malleeswari (paragraph 17.1) puts it this way: the ground “is available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.”

Rule 4(2)(b) adds that no review shall be granted on this ground “without strict proof” that the matter was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced earlier.

Ground 2: mistake or error apparent on the face of the record

This is the ground most often argued. Malleeswari (paragraph 17.2) says it “may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.” (The Court cited Hari Vishnu Kamath, T.C. Basappa and Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde for these sentences.)

In the same judgment’s words, “through a review application, an apparent error of fact or law is intimated to the court, but no extra reasoning is undertaken to explain the said error” (paragraph 16).

Ground 3: any other sufficient reason

These words do not open the door to any reason the court finds fair. In Moran Mar Basselios (1954) the Supreme Court noted that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had held “that the words ‘any other sufficient reason’ must mean ‘a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule.'”, citing Chhajju Ram v. Neki. Malleeswari (paragraph 17.3) repeats it: the phrase “means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories”.

Moran Mar Basselios also gives an example of such a reason. Where the court assumed that a party’s advocate had made a concession that was never made, or misunderstood its terms, the error “will not generally appear on the record but will have to be brought before the Court by way of an affidavit”, and “the misconception of the Court must be regarded as sufficient reason analogous to an error on the face of the record.”

What review cannot do

Review corrects mistakes; it is not a second hearing. In Malleeswari v. K. Suguna (8 September 2025) the Supreme Court set aside a High Court order passed on review because it “has not adverted to an error apparent on the face of the record, but has taken up an error on reappreciation of the case and counter case of the parties”. Before restating the grounds, the Court listed these limits (paragraph 15, with the earlier judgments it cited in its footnotes):

• “The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC” (citing Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, 1995).
• “Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court” (citing Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, 1979).
• “it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise” (citing Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, 1997).
• “The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view” (citing Lily Thomas v. Union of India, 2000).
• “The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible” (citing Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, 2009).

The Code adds one express exclusion: under the Explanation to Rule 1, a later decision of a superior court in another case that reverses or modifies the legal ruling on which the judgment was based “shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment”.

Procedure: how a review application is decided, step by step

Form of the application (Rule 3)

Rule 3 says: “The provisions as to the form of preferring appeals shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to applications for review.” Those provisions are in Order XLI Rule 1: an appeal is preferred “in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant or his pleader”, accompanied by a copy of the judgment, and the memorandum “shall set forth, concisely and under distinct heads, the grounds of objection to the decree appealed from without any argument or narrative; and such grounds shall be numbered consecutively.” A review application is drafted the same way, with its grounds tied to Order XLVII Rule 1. The pleader’s appointment in the suit covers the review application (Order III Rule 4(2), Explanation).

To which court and which judge (Rules 5 and 6)

The application goes to “the Court which passed the decree or made the order” (Section 114). Rule 5 then decides who hears it: where the judge or judges who passed the decree or order continue attached to the court when the application is presented, and are not “precluded by absence or other cause for a period of six months next after the application” from considering it, “such Judge or Judges or any of them shall hear the application, and no other Judge or Judges of the Court shall hear the same.” Where more than one judge hears it and the court is equally divided, the application is rejected; otherwise the majority view prevails (Rule 6). Under Order L Rule 1, Rules 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of Order XLVII do not extend to courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 or exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under it.

Rejection at the first stage, or notice to the other side (Rule 4)

If “it appears to the Court that there is not sufficient ground for a review, it shall reject the application” (Rule 4(1)). If the court is inclined to grant it, it must first give “previous notice to the opposite party, to enable him to appear and be heard in support of the decree or order” (Rule 4(2), proviso (a)). The Code’s Form No. 14 in Appendix G is this “Notice to show cause why a review should not be granted”.

If the applicant does not appear (Rule 7(2) and (3))

An application rejected because the applicant failed to appear can be restored. The applicant applies for restoration, and if he proves that he “was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing”, the court “shall order it to be restored to the file upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit”. No restoration order is made unless notice of the restoration application has been served on the opposite party.

After review is granted: the re-hearing (Rule 8)

Granting review and deciding the case again are two steps. Under Rule 8, “When an application for review is granted, a note thereof shall be made in the register and the Court may at once re-hear the case or make such order in regard to the re-hearing as it thinks fit.” The re-hearing ends in a fresh decree or order.

Rule 9 then closes the chain: “No application to review an order made on an application for a review or a decree or order passed or made on a review shall be entertained.”

Can you appeal an order on a review application?

It depends on which way the order goes. Rule 7(1), as substituted in 1976 with effect from 1 February 1977, reads: “An order of the Court rejecting the application shall not be appealable; but an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit.”

• Order rejecting review: not appealable. The original decree or order can still be challenged by any appeal or revision the law allows, within its time limit or with condonation of delay.
• Order granting review: appealable at once, or in the appeal from the final decree. Order XLIII Rule 1 still lists “(w) an order under rule 4 of Order XLVII granting an application for review” (India Code, as on 10 January 2026).

Limitation for review under the CPC: 30 days

Article 124 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes, “For a review of judgment by a court other than the Supreme Court”, a period of “Thirty days” from “The date of the decree or order”. Time runs from the date of the decree or order. An application filed after that period “shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence” (Section 3(1)), unless the delay is condoned.

• Copy time is excluded. Section 12(2) excludes, for “review of a judgment”, “the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order … sought to be revised or reviewed”, and Section 12(3) also excludes the time needed to obtain a copy of the judgment.
• Court closed on the last day. If the period expires on a day the court is closed, the application may be made on the day it reopens (Section 4).
• Condonation of delay. Under Section 5, an application “may be admitted after the prescribed period if the … applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause” for the delay. The firm’s guide on condonation of delay explains Section 5.

The firm’s free limitation calculator counts the days between two dates. In the Supreme Court the thirty days come from its own Rules (see below).

Court fee on a review application in Delhi

The court fee depends on when the application is filed. In Delhi, Schedule I of the Court-Fees Act, 1870 was replaced by the Court-Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012 (Delhi Act 11 of 2012). Its Schedule I “(as applicable to the National Capital Territory of Delhi)” provides:

• Article 6 – “Application for review of judgment, if presented before the ninetieth day from the date of the decree”: “One-half of the fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal.”
• Article 5 – the same application “if presented on or after the ninetieth day from the date of the decree”: “The fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal.”

The 1870 Act also allows refunds: under Section 14, of the extra fee paid for filing on or after the ninetieth day, at the court’s discretion and “unless the delay was caused by the applicant’s laches”; and under Section 15, where on re-hearing the court reverses or modifies its decision “on the ground of mistake in law or fact”, unless the change is due to fresh evidence that might have been produced at the original hearing. The later Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act 2026 (Delhi Gazette, 6 March 2026) substituted Section 16, so that the full court fee is refunded where the parties settle a suit or appeal and it is disposed of as settled or compromised, and omitted Section 16A; it did not change Articles 5 and 6 of Schedule I or Sections 14 and 15. The firm’s court fee and jurisdiction calculator works out the fee on a Delhi plaint, from which the review fee follows.

Review, appeal, revision and correction compared

Review is one of several remedies against a civil court’s decision. The table compares them as the Code and the Limitation Act describe them; the firm’s separate guide on review, revision and appeal in civil and criminal cases covers the subject across the CPC and the BNSS.

Remedy	Provision	Which court	What it covers	Time limit
Review	Section 114, Order XLVII CPC	The same court that passed the decree or order	Only the three grounds in Order XLVII Rule 1	30 days from the decree or order (Article 124)
Correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes	Section 152 CPC	The same court, on application or of its own motion	Clerical or arithmetical mistakes, and errors from an accidental slip or omission	“At any time”
First appeal	Section 96 CPC	The court authorised to hear appeals from that court	Every decree passed by a court of original jurisdiction, subject to exceptions (for example, no appeal from a consent decree)	90 days to a High Court; 30 days to any other court (Article 116)
Appeal from orders	Section 104 and Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC	The appellate court	Only the orders listed	90 days to a High Court; 30 days to any other court (Article 116)
Second appeal	Section 100 CPC	High Court	Decrees passed in appeal, where the case “involves a substantial question of law”	90 days (Article 116(a))
Revision	Section 115 CPC	High Court	A case decided by a subordinate court in which no appeal lies, for jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity	90 days (Article 131)

The key difference is the deciding court: an appeal or revision goes to a higher court, while a review goes back to the same court, which may only correct a mistake within the three grounds.

Review petition in the Supreme Court: Article 137 and curative petitions

Section 114 and Order XLVII govern civil courts. The Supreme Court’s own power comes from Article 137 of the Constitution: “Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.” Article 145(1)(e) lets the Court make rules on “the conditions subject to which any judgment pronounced or order made by the Court may be reviewed and the procedure for such review including the time within which applications to the Court for such review are to be entered”.

Those rules are in Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (Gazette notification G.S.R. 368(E) dated 27 May 2014, in force from 19 August 2014; none of the amendments of 2019, 2024 and 2025 published on the Court’s website touches Order XLVII or XLVIII):

• Grounds: “no application for review will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code, and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record” (Rule 1). The Advocate-on-Record must certify that it is the first review application.
• Time: by petition “filed within thirty days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed”, setting out the grounds clearly (Rule 2).
• Hearing: “Unless otherwise ordered by the Court an application for review shall be disposed of by circulation without any oral arguments”; the Court may dismiss it or issue notice, and it goes “as far as practicable” to the same judge or bench (Rule 3).
• Only one review: once a review application has been disposed of, “no further application for review shall be entertained in the same matter” (Rule 5).

After a review petition is dismissed, the Supreme Court may still entertain a curative petition in rare cases. In Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (10 April 2002), a Constitution Bench held that the Court, “to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice, may re-consider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power”. Saying that it was “neither advisable nor possible to enumerate all the grounds” on which such a petition may be entertained, it named two situations in which a petitioner is entitled to relief: a violation of natural justice (a person affected by the judgment who was not a party, or a party not served with notice), and a judge’s failure to disclose a connection with the subject-matter or the parties “giving scope for an apprehension of bias”. Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 now governs curative petitions: the grounds must have been taken in the review petition, a Senior Advocate must certify the petition, it must be filed “within reasonable time” of the review order, and it goes first to the three senior-most judges and the judges who passed the judgment, if available.

Can a criminal court review its judgment?

No. Section 114 CPC applies only to civil proceedings. For criminal courts, Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 362 CrPC, with no change in wording) says: “Save as otherwise provided by this Sanhita or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.” For a criminal case pending on 1 July 2024, Section 531(2)(a) BNSS keeps the CrPC in force for its disposal, and Section 362 CrPC is in the same terms. The Supreme Court can review its own judgments in criminal proceedings under Article 137, but only on the ground of “an error apparent on the face of the record” (Supreme Court Rules, Order XLVII Rule 1).

Is “Section 114” the same in the IPC and the Evidence Act?

No. Many searches for “dhara 114” mean a different law. Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (“Abettor present when offence is committed”) is now Section 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act (“Court may presume existence of certain facts”) is now Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. This page is about Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with review in civil cases. The firm’s IPC to BNS comparison tool shows the old and new criminal-law numbers.

CPC की धारा 114 (पुनर्विलोकन) – हिंदी में सारांश (Summary in Hindi)

सिविल प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1908 के India Code पर प्रकाशित आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ में “review” के लिए शब्द “पुनर्विलोकन” है। भाग 8 का शीर्षक “निर्देश, पुनर्विलोकन और पुनरीक्षण” है, और धारा 114 का आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ इस प्रकार है:

“114. पुनर्विलोकन—पूर्वोक्त के अधीन रहते हुए कोई व्यक्ति, जो—
(क) किसी ऐसे डिक्री या आदेश से जिसकी इस संहिता द्वारा अपील अनुज्ञात है, किन्तु जिसकी कोई अपील नहीं की गई है,
(ख) किसी ऐसे डिक्री या आदेश से जिसकी इस संहिता द्वारा अपील अनुज्ञात नहीं है, अथवा
(ग) ऐसे विनिश्चय से जो लघुवाद न्यायालय के निर्देश पर किया गया है,
अपने को व्यथित मानता है वह डिक्री पारित करने वाले या आदेश करने वाले न्यायालय से निर्णय के पुनर्विलोकन के लिए आवेदन कर सकेगा और न्यायालय उस पर ऐसा आदेश कर सकेगा जो वह ठीक समझे ।”

सरल शब्दों में, धारा 114 के अनुसार जो व्यक्ति किसी सिविल न्यायालय की डिक्री या आदेश से व्यथित है, वह उसी न्यायालय से निर्णय के पुनर्विलोकन (review) के लिए आवेदन कर सकता है, बशर्ते (क) उस डिक्री या आदेश की अपील होती हो पर अपील नहीं की गई हो, (ख) उसकी अपील होती ही न हो, या (ग) वह लघुवाद न्यायालय के निर्देश पर दिया गया विनिश्चय हो। भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 114 (अब भारतीय न्याय संहिता की धारा 54) और साक्ष्य अधिनियम की धारा 114 (अब भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम की धारा 119) अलग विषय हैं।

आदेश 47 नियम 1 के आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ के अनुसार पुनर्विलोकन के तीन आधार हैं: (1) “ऐसी नई और महत्वपूर्ण बात या साक्ष्य” का पता चलना, जो “सम्यक् तत्परता के प्रयोग के पश्चात्” भी डिक्री या आदेश के समय आवेदक के ज्ञान में नहीं था या वह उसे पेश नहीं कर सकता था; (2) “किसी भूल या गलती के कारण जो अभिलेख के देखने से ही प्रकट होती हो” (error apparent on the face of the record); और (3) “किसी अन्य पर्याप्त कारण से”। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने Moran Mar Basselios (1954) और Malleeswari v. K. Suguna (2025) में कहा है कि “अन्य पर्याप्त कारण” का अर्थ पहले दो आधारों जैसा (analogous) कारण है; और Malleeswari (2025) के अनुसार पुनर्विलोकन अपील नहीं है, यह भूल सुधारने के लिए है, कोई दूसरा दृष्टिकोण प्रतिस्थापित करने के लिए नहीं। नियम 1 के स्पष्टीकरण के अनुसार, यदि किसी अन्य मामले में वरिष्ठ न्यायालय ने बाद में उस विधि-प्रश्न का विनिश्चय उलट दिया या बदल दिया है जिस पर निर्णय आधारित था, तो यह पुनर्विलोकन का आधार नहीं होगा।

परिसीमा अधिनियम, 1963 की अनुसूची के अनुच्छेद 124 के अनुसार उच्चतम न्यायालय के अलावा किसी न्यायालय में पुनर्विलोकन का आवेदन डिक्री या आदेश की तारीख से तीस दिन के भीतर करना होता है। निर्णय सुनाए जाने का दिन और डिक्री, आदेश तथा निर्णय की प्रति (copy) लेने में लगा आवश्यक समय नहीं गिना जाता (धारा 12), और पर्याप्त कारण दिखाने पर देरी माफ़ की जा सकती है (धारा 5)।

प्रक्रिया: आवेदन अपील के ज्ञापन के प्ररूप में दिया जाता है (नियम 3), और यदि डिक्री पारित करने वाला न्यायाधीश उसी न्यायालय से संलग्न है और आवेदन के बाद छह मास तक अनुपस्थिति या अन्य कारण से वंचित नहीं है, तो वही उसे सुनेगा (नियम 5)। पर्याप्त आधार न होने पर न्यायालय आवेदन नामंजूर कर देगा; मंजूर करने से पहले विरोधी पक्षकार को सूचना देना आवश्यक है, और नई बात या साक्ष्य के आधार पर आवेदन “पूर्ण सबूत” के बिना मंजूर नहीं होगा (नियम 4)। मंजूरी के बाद न्यायालय मामले को फिर से सुनता है (नियम 8)।

अपील: नियम 7 का शीर्षक है “नामंजूरी का आदेश अपीलनीय न होगा”। आवेदन नामंजूर करने वाला आदेश अपीलनीय नहीं है, किन्तु मंजूर करने वाले आदेश पर तुरन्त अपील द्वारा, या वाद में अन्तिम डिक्री की अपील में, आक्षेप किया जा सकता है (आदेश 43 नियम 1 भी देखें)। नियम 9 (“कुछ आवेदनों का वर्जन”) के अनुसार पुनर्विलोकन के आवेदन पर किए गए आदेश, या पुनर्विलोकन में पारित डिक्री या आदेश, के पुनर्विलोकन का कोई आवेदन ग्रहण नहीं किया जाएगा।

दाण्डिक (criminal) न्यायालय भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता, 2023 की धारा 403 (पहले दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा 362) के अनुसार हस्ताक्षरित निर्णय में केवल लिपिकीय या गणितीय भूल सुधार सकते हैं, पुनर्विलोकन नहीं कर सकते। उच्चतम न्यायालय संविधान के अनुच्छेद 137 और अपने नियमों (Supreme Court Rules, 2013 का Order XLVII, तीस दिन) के अधीन अपने निर्णयों का पुनर्विलोकन करता है। यह सारांश फर्म द्वारा तैयार किया गया है; उद्धरण चिह्नों में दिए गए शब्द India Code के आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ से हैं।

Frequently asked questions

Conclusion

Section 114 CPC lets a civil court correct its own decree or order, but only on the three grounds of Order XLVII Rule 1: new and important evidence that could not be produced despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another reason of the same kind. The application goes to the same court, ordinarily the same judge, within thirty days of the decree or order. An order rejecting it cannot be appealed, an order granting it can, and a review order cannot itself be reviewed.

Because the Supreme Court treats review as a narrow power that “does not sit in appeal over its own order”, a party who simply disagrees with the decision should look at an appeal or revision, keeping their own time limits in mind.

Sources used for this post: the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sections 2(9), 2(14), 96, 100, 104, 113, 114, 115 and 152, Order III Rule 4, Order XX Rule 3, Order XLI Rule 1, Order XLIII Rule 1, Order XLVII Rules 1 to 9 and Appendix G Form No. 14, from India Code (a1908-05.pdf, as on 10 January 2026), and its official Hindi text on India Code (h19085.pdf, Section 114 and Order 47 read from the printed pages 34, 196 and 197); the Limitation Act, 1963, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 12 and Schedule Articles 116, 124 and 131, from India Code (A1963-36.pdf, as on 30 August 2026); the Court-Fees Act, 1870, Sections 14 and 15 and Schedule I, from India Code (A1870-7.pdf, as on 8 July 2026), and the Court-Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012 (Delhi Act 11 of 2012), Schedule I as applicable to Delhi, from India Code (Delhi Gazette notifications, read from the page image), and the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act 2026, Delhi Gazette Extraordinary Part IV No. 72, 6 March 2026 (notification F.14(105)/LA-2026), https://egazette.gov.in/WriteReadData/2026/270759.pdf; the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 403 and 531, from India Code (as on 6 October 2025) and the firm’s section mapping checked against the Gazette text; the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 54, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 119, from the same mapping; the Constitution of India, Articles 137 and 145(1)(e), from the Legislative Department’s 2026 edition (as on 10 September 2026); the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Orders XLVII and XLVIII (G.S.R. 368(E), 27 May 2014), from https://www.sci.gov.in/supreme-court-rules/, with the 2019, 2024 and 2025 amendments listed there; Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, judgment dated 21 May 1954, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/906.pdf; Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, Writ Petition (Civil) 509 of 1997, judgment dated 10 April 2002, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/18403.pdf; and Malleeswari v. K. Suguna, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12787 of 2025, 2025 INSC 1080, judgment dated 8 September 2025, https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/14036/14036_2025_13_1501_63978_Judgement_08-Sep-2025.pdf.