Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Review Petition - Can be filed to prevent miscarriage of justice and correct grave, palpable errors ["Bharati Bezbaruah, W/o. Late Biren Bezbaruah VS Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Gauhati"]>["Bharati Bezbaruah, W/o. Late Biren Bezbaruah VS Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Gauhati"], ["Sivakumar.G vs State of Kerala - Kerala"]>["Sivakumar.G vs State of Kerala - Kerala"], ["Sandeep Kar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"]>["Sandeep Kar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs V.K Gour Vikas Kumar Gour - Madhya Pradesh"]>["Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs V.K Gour Vikas Kumar Gour - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Anoop Raikwar - Madhya Pradesh"]>["Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Anoop Raikwar - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Bahadur Singh Poudlal - Madhya Pradesh"]>["Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Bahadur Singh Poudlal - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Gauri Shankar Indane Service Kuchaikote VS Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - Patna"]>["Gauri Shankar Indane Service Kuchaikote VS Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - Patna"], ["Ashok Bhatia vs Zonal Manager West - Madhya Pradesh"]>["Ashok Bhatia vs Zonal Manager West - Madhya Pradesh"], ["HEMRAJ MEENA VS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - National Green Tribunal"]>["HEMRAJ MEENA VS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - National Green Tribunal"], ["DIKSHA KALSON Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"]>["DIKSHA KALSON Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Dulheram Meena S/o Shri Ramswaroop Meena VS Appolo Animal Medical Group Trust, Jamdoli - Rajasthan"]>["Dulheram Meena S/o Shri Ramswaroop Meena VS Appolo Animal Medical Group Trust, Jamdoli - Rajasthan"], INDSC_40112_2014_40112_2014>INDSC_40112_2014_40112_2014, ["Kewal Krishan VS Sham Lal - Current Civil Cases"]>["Kewal Krishan VS Sham Lal - Current Civil Cases"], ["Jai Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]>["Jai Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Union Bank of India VS Additional District Magistrate, Meerut - Allahabad"]>["Union Bank of India VS Additional District Magistrate, Meerut - Allahabad"], ["Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack vs Malaya Ranjan Dash - Orissa"]>["Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack vs Malaya Ranjan Dash - Orissa"], ["Mantu Kumar S/o Late Ramchandra Singh VS Union of India through the Home Secretary, New Delhi - Patna"]>["Mantu Kumar S/o Late Ramchandra Singh VS Union of India through the Home Secretary, New Delhi - Patna"]**
Main points and insights:
The Supreme Court and High Courts emphasize that review is a limited remedy aimed at correcting errors that are apparent and would otherwise cause injustice ["Bharati Bezbaruah, W/o. Late Biren Bezbaruah VS Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Gauhati"], ["Sivakumar.G vs State of Kerala - Kerala"], ["Sandeep Kar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs V.K Gour Vikas Kumar Gour - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Anoop Raikwar - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Bahadur Singh Poudlal - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Jai Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Union Bank of India VS Additional District Magistrate, Meerut - Allahabad"], ["Dulheram Meena S/o Shri Ramswaroop Meena VS Appolo Animal Medical Group Trust, Jamdoli - Rajasthan"], ["INDSC_40112_2014"], ["Kewal Krishan VS Sham Lal - Current Civil Cases"], ["Gauri Shankar Indane Service Kuchaikote VS Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - Patna"], ["HEMRAJ MEENA VS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - National Green Tribunal"], ["Mantu Kumar S/o Late Ramchandra Singh VS Union of India through the Home Secretary, New Delhi - Patna"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the Indian judicial system, finality of judgments is a cornerstone principle, yet mechanisms exist to correct grave errors. One such tool is the review petition, often invoked when a decision risks causing a miscarriage of justice. But can a review petition be filed to prevent miscarriage of justice? This question arises frequently among litigants facing seemingly unjust outcomes. While review is not a routine appeal, it serves as a safety valve for patent errors that could lead to serious injustice. This post delves into the legal framework, grounds, limitations, and practical insights drawn from key judgments.
Note: This article provides general information based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific case.
Review petitions allow courts to revisit their own judgments under limited circumstances. Governed by Article 137 of the Constitution and procedural rules like Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) or Supreme Court Rules, reviews are not rehearings on merits but corrections of obvious mistakes. The Supreme Court has consistently held that reviews aim to prevent miscarriage of justice by addressing errors apparent on the face of the recordChairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. VS Bendangkokba Longkumar - 2005 0 Supreme(Gau) 451.
As emphasized, the grounds for review include discovery of new and important matters or evidence, or an error apparent on the face of the record Chairman and Managing Director, H. P. C. Ltd. VS Bendangkokba Longkumar - 2005 0 Supreme(Gau) 446State of Manipur VS Manipur Hills and Plain Contractors Association - 2006 0 Supreme(Gau) 34. Mere disagreement with the court's reasoning or alternative interpretations do not suffice; the error must be manifest and patent, obvious without delving into evidence re-appreciation Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. VS Bendangkokba Longkumar - 2005 0 Supreme(Gau) 451VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2017 5 Supreme 451.
To succeed, petitioners must demonstrate that uncorrected errors would result in grave injustice or violate principles of natural justice. Here are the primary grounds:
The court clarified, there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it Kaluram vs Narayan - 2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 777.
In criminal cases, reviews are similarly restricted to manifest errors causing injustice, underscoring natural justice VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2017 5 Supreme 451.
Courts exercise review power sparingly. It is not an appeal or rehearing of the case on merits but a limited correction of patent errors Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. VS Bendangkokba Longkumar - 2005 0 Supreme(Gau) 451. Re-evaluation of evidence or fresh arguments is impermissible unless revealing a patent error K. S. Industries VS Rajasthan Financial Corporation - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 1332Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. VS Bendangkokba Longkumar - 2005 0 Supreme(Gau) 451.
Key limitations include:
For instance, in a service dispute, a second review was quashed as impermissible, affirming promotion post-exoneration P. Selvaraju VS Director General of Police Chennai - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 21. Similarly, revisional courts under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act cannot re-assess facts but only correct illegal errors to prevent injustice Rakesh Kumar VS Additional Distt. Judge - 2018 Supreme(All) 1811.
The Supreme Court in multiple rulings has reinforced cautious exercise. The scope of review is narrow; courts exercise caution and do not entertain review petitions based solely on re-evaluation of evidence or different interpretations K. S. Industries VS Rajasthan Financial Corporation - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 1332Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. VS Bendangkokba Longkumar - 2005 0 Supreme(Gau) 451.
Under Article 137, the apex court invokes inherent powers for grave cases Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. VS Bendangkokba Longkumar - 2005 0 Supreme(Gau) 451VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2017 5 Supreme 451. High Courts mirror this under Articles 226/227, as in cases preventing palpable errors Kaluram vs Narayan - 2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 777State of Jammu VS R. K. Zalpuri - 2015 7 Supreme 393.
In criminal contexts, reviews target procedural lapses evident on record VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2017 5 Supreme 451. Civil matters follow suit, barring re-argument State of Manipur VS Manipur Hills and Plain Contractors Association - 2006 0 Supreme(Gau) 34. A notable example: petitioners alleging natural justice violations in tribunal proceedings were dismissed for failing to exhaust remedies Abhi Coke Private Limited VS Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. - 2023 Supreme(Megh) 52.
Service law cases highlight finality: post-exoneration promotions cannot be reviewed beyond limits, ensuring justice without endless litigation Jayakumar, Formerly Inspector of Police, Dindigal VS Secretary to Government - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 4102.
If contemplating a review:
Failure here often results in dismissal, as in regularization disputes where prior arguments were negatived Chando Ram VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 Supreme(Jhk) 899.
Yes, a review petition may be filed to prevent miscarriage of justice, but only for patent errors manifest on record that risk grave harm. Courts wield this power cautiously to uphold finality while safeguarding fairness. As judgments affirm, it's a procedural safeguard, not an appellate redo Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. VS Bendangkokba Longkumar - 2005 0 Supreme(Gau) 451K. S. Industries VS Rajasthan Financial Corporation - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 1332.
Key Takeaways:- Grounds limited to new evidence, apparent errors, natural justice breaches.- No re-appreciation; focus on obvious injustices.- Inherent/constitutional powers enable correction sparingly.- Exhaust alternatives; respect limitations like no second reviews.
For litigants, understanding these nuances can guide strategy. Always seek professional counsel to assess viability in your matter.
Yet another principle of review is that the power of review has to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice or correct grave and palpable error. Laid down the Supreme Court, in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. ... State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 1009) as follows : "There is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of....
State of Punjab reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389 there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and pulpable errors committed by it. ... In any case, this Review Petition cannot be entertained since the petitioner is seeking waiver of the cost imposed in the Writ Petition and not in a Writ Appeal. The ....
which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. ... State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909] there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. ... Per: Justice#HL....
which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. ... State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909] there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. ... ORDER Per: Justic....
which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. ... State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909] there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. ... ORDER Per: Justic....
which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. ... State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909] there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. ... ORDER Per: Justic....
Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. ... If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in a miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying ... Thereafter a review application (....
State of Punjab, (1979) 4 SCC 389 there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and pulpable errors committed by it. ... But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In....
which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. ... State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909] there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. ... The first and foremost requi....
This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed assailing the impugned orders dated 05.12.2017 allowing O.A. No. 25 of 2017 and order dated 30.08.2021, rejecting a review application being RA. No. 1/2018 in O.A. ... The petitioners have alleged that in the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, there has been a flagrant abuse of the principles of natural justice and that there is error of law patent on the face of the record, which has resulted in the miscarriage#H....
Mere possibility of two different views or merely saying that some grounds could not be taken before the writ court, cannot be a ground for review. In the instant case, it can comfortably be said that this Review Petition is not maintainable as the relief sought for earlier at the time of arguments of the main Writ Petition had been negatived and the same relief has been sought for in the present Review Petition. Review is not at all rehearing of the matter all over again and to maintain a review petition, it has to be shown that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Rev....
7. Sri Shesh Verma learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that although it is a general rule that revisional court should not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial court but the revisional court is entitled to point out any illegal error and rectify the defect. This can be done to prevent miscarriage of justice. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon a judgment reported in 2002 (2) ARC 602. In this case, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed that although the revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Small Cause Court A....
Review is provided only to prevent miscarriage of justice and therefore there cannot be a review of review order. Moreover, either the State by itself can review the order if all other authorities mentioned in Rule 15-A failed to review and if review is called for, for rendering justice. If the Head of the Department has done it, the State is precluded from again reviewing the order of the reviewing authority namely the Head of the Department.
Review is provided only to prevent miscarriage of justice and therefore there cannot be a review of review order. If the Head of the Department has done it, the State is precluded from again reviewing the order of the reviewing authority namely the Head of the Department. Moreover, either the State by itself can review the order if all other authorities mentioned in Rule 15-A failed to review and if review is called for, for rendering justice.
Moreover, either the State by itself can review the order if all other authorities mentioned in Rule 15-A failed to review and if review is called for, for rendering justice. Review is provided only to prevent miscarriage of justice and therefore, there cannot be a review of review order. If the Head of the Department has done it, the State is precluded from again reviewing the order of the reviewing authority namely the Head of the Department.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
