Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
In civil litigation, securing a money decree is often a hard-fought victory, but what happens when the court denies costs without explanation? Many litigants wonder: whether a review maintainable in case of a money decree in which court denied cost without any reasons as mandated by law. This question strikes at the heart of review jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. While frustration over unexplained decisions is understandable, the law imposes strict limits on reviews. This post breaks down the legal position, drawing from key precedents and principles to guide you.
Note: This article provides general insights based on established case law and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific case.
Review petitions offer a narrow remedy to correct grave errors in judicial orders, but they are not an avenue for re-litigating cases or challenging discretion. Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC strictly limits reviews to three grounds:
As held, Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC states that an aggrieved person i) due to discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge... or ii) due to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or iii) on account of any other sufficient reason, may seek review... Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Secretary, Land and Building Department VS K. L. Rathi Steels Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 240
The third ground is narrowly interpreted: The said expression may mean that the reason must be sufficient to the Court to which the application for review is made. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Secretary, Land and Building Department VS K. L. Rathi Steels Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 240 Supreme Court reviews under Article 137 follow similar contours. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Secretary, Land and Building Department VS K. L. Rathi Steels Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 240Union of India VS Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 401
Review cannot re-examine merits or discretionary calls—it's not a substitute for appeal. Union of India VS Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 401
Costs in civil suits, including money decrees, fall under Section 35 CPC, which grants courts broad discretion. Typically, courts award costs to the successful party, but denial without reasons doesn't automatically trigger review.
An error apparent must be obvious and patent, needing no deep argument—think clerical slips or clear misapplications of law. Denying costs without reasons in a money decree rarely meets this bar, as costs are discretionary. No precedent mandates reasons for such denials in pure judicial decrees. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Secretary, Land and Building Department VS K. L. Rathi Steels Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 240
An error apparent must be self-evident, not requiring elaborate argument. Documents affirm reviews post-decree are limited: Mere rejection of special leave petition does not take away the jurisdiction... to review its own order if grounds for exercise of review jurisdiction are shown to exist. Kunhayammed VS State Of Kerala - 2000 5 Supreme 181 But discretionary costs don't align. Kunhayammed VS State Of Kerala - 2000 5 Supreme 181Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Secretary, Land and Building Department VS K. L. Rathi Steels Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 240
In DRT proceedings, reviews are confined to mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, not merits re-evaluation. One case dismissed a review for lacking such error, emphasizing: Review petitions in DRT are permissible only for mistakes apparent on the record, not for re-evaluating the merits of prior decisions. (From Debts Recovery Tribunal Rules analysis). Union Bank of India (Earlier Andhra Bank), represented by its Authorised Officer/Assistant General manager, Ramayurappadu Branch, Vijayawada vs Sri Baliboina Siva Prasad - 2025 Supreme(Online)(DRAT) 301
Similarly, in APTEL appeals, reviews failing to show facial errors on carrying costs were deemed unmaintainable. Torrent Power Ltd. vs Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. - 2019 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 21
Unreasoned orders can vitiate quasi-judicial or administrative actions under natural justice. For instance: Assigning reasons for passing an order of suspension is one of the facets of principles of natural justice. Further, non consideration of the pleas/contentions or absence of reasons for rejection of the same, vitiates the whole proceedings. T. gunasekhar VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2020 0 Supreme(AP) 7T. gunasekhar VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2020 0 Supreme(AP) 54P. Vasanth Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2020 0 Supreme(AP) 65
Recording of reasons in administrative or quasi judicial order which attracts penal consequences is imperative... absence whereof could render the order liable to judicial chastise. T. gunasekhar VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2020 0 Supreme(AP) 7
However, these principles apply to suspensions or penalties, not discretionary costs in money decrees. Judicial decrees presume reasoned judgments under Order XX Rule 1 CPC, but costs stand apart. No cited case extends this to money decrees. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Secretary, Land and Building Department VS K. L. Rathi Steels Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 240
Reviews are barred if an appeal lies (Order XLVII Rule 1), but SLP dismissal doesn't merge orders or bar review if grounds exist. Kunhayammed VS State Of Kerala - 2000 5 Supreme 181KUMUD BHARGAVA VS SUDHIR BHARAGAV - 2016 0 Supreme(All) 779 Mere rejection of special leave petition does not take away the jurisdiction of the court... to review its own order if grounds... are shown to exist. Kunhayammed VS State Of Kerala - 2000 5 Supreme 181
Successive reviews are impermissible and may invite costs as abuse of process. Union Bank of India VS Additional District Magistrate, Meerut - 2023 Supreme(All) 867 In one case, a second review was dismissed with Rs. 5,000 costs, held as misuse. Union Bank of India VS Additional District Magistrate, Meerut - 2023 Supreme(All) 867
Exceptions? If denial ignores mandatory statutory costs (e.g., fixed costs), it might be patent error—but documents show no such mandate for reasons. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Secretary, Land and Building Department VS K. L. Rathi Steels Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 240
Consent Decrees: Reviews/recalls against consent decrees don't lie under Order XLVII if alleging post-decree fraud; suits are barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC. Kumar Builder VS Kumar City Residents Co-operative Housing Society Ltd - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 622
Money Suits Corrections: Courts can correct typographical errors (e.g., interest rates) via review under Order XLVII, Sections 151/152 CPC, if apparent. Delay condonation possible under Limitation Act Section 5. MINATI ENGINEERING WORKS VS UNION OF INDIA - 2005 Supreme(Cal) 642
Execution Contexts: Costs decrees become executable money decrees, but challenges go via appeal, not review. Arvind Jeram Kotecha VS Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 1558
Specific Performance Suits: Courts may decree refunds under Specific Relief Act Section 22 alongside performance denial, but costs remain discretionary. Gajendran VS Sivanandi (Died) - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 64Saviour VS Mathai - 2007 Supreme(Ker) 839
These reinforce reviews' narrow scope, especially for discretionary elements like costs.
Instead of review, challenge costs denial via appeal under Section 96 CPC—it's the proper forum for discretionary re-assessment. HARI SINGH VS S. SETH - 1995 0 Supreme(Del) 107
Recommendations:
Navigating CPC remedies requires precision. While reviews tempt quick fixes, appeals offer broader relief. Always review your decree's specifics with counsel.
References:1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Secretary, Land and Building Department VS K. L. Rathi Steels Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 240: Core on Order XLVII grounds.2. Union of India VS Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 401: Statutory limits.3. Kunhayammed VS State Of Kerala - 2000 5 Supreme 181: Post-SLP reviews.4. T. gunasekhar VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2020 0 Supreme(AP) 7, T. gunasekhar VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2020 0 Supreme(AP) 54, P. Vasanth Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2020 0 Supreme(AP) 65: Quasi-judicial reasons.5. Others as integrated.
Stay informed, litigate wisely!
#CPCReview, #MoneyDecree, #CostsDenial
decree is not maintainable. ... Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors.) and submitted that this Court has passed the decree without allowing any interest or cost to the plaintiff and hence the relief prayed for by the plaintiff in the suit with respect to interest and cost deemed to have been denied. 15. ... the present case, though this court has not allowed the cost but has also not provided any reason as to ....
The Court is not inclined to open ‘Pandora's Box’ for the following reasons- Firstly : The law is well settled that recall or review application can be filed only by the counsel who had argued the case and not by a subsequent counsel who is engaged after the decision. ... Undoubtedly, if the case is filed and argued by a counsel, he is the only person to file review application for the reasons that he is aware about the facts and grounds argued befor....
This Court before proceeding to examine as to whether the order which is being sought to be reviewed can be reviewed on the grounds upon which the present review has been filed for which settled position of law for the purpose of exercising the power of review needs to be referred herein, as has been ... When Section 35(2) provides for cost to follow the event, it is implicit that the costs have to be those which are reasonably incurred by a successful party except in those cases where....
The first proviso to section 36(3) brings the Court to the provisions of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for grant of stay of a money decree where the arbitral award is for payment of money. 14. ... reasons. ... Counsel submits that since Hyder Consulting was not placed before the Court at the time of pronouncement of the order, the review becomes automatically maintainable on the Court having overlooked a settled principle of #HL....
Hence the question is whether this Court can review the said Order under Civil Review Jurisdiction. 3. ... to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. ... Hence the Review Petition being bereft of any merit is dismissed and a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) is imposed upon the Petitioner for filing the frivolous review petition, the cost to be remitted in Patna High #HL....
Hence the question is whether this Court can review the said Order under Civil Review Jurisdiction. 3. ... to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. ... Hence the Review Petition being bereft of any merit is dismissed and a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) is imposed upon the Petitioner for filing the frivolous review petition, the cost to be remitted in Patna High #HL....
Further, the law is well settled that a review petition, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”, as has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Parsion Devi v. ... The writ Court further observed that the imposition of cost on the party which started litigation without any just cause or took false and frivolous defence is necessary to discourage the dishonest litigant and to this end, the Court is req....
Whether the Review Petition which does not disclose any error in respect of carrying cost on the face of the record was maintainable? 4.3. Whether Respondent Commission has obviated the essence of Review which is that a reviewing court does not re-hear the matter? ... Questions of Law:- The Appellant has raised following questions of law in the present appeal: 4.1. Whether the impugned order is bad in la....
to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. ... The core issues to be decided in this Appeal are - (i) As to whether Review Application filed by the Respondent was legally maintainable or not? (ii) Whether the provisions of Rule 5-A of a href="./.. ... Law nowhere provides to correct an erroneous order passed by the Tribunal in review proceedings. Law of review has catego....
While dismissing the aforesaid review application a cost of Rs.5000/-was also imposed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in this case. ... It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case that second review application against the same order is not maintainable and amounts to abuse of process of law, more so when no satisfactory explanation was given. ... What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statemen....
In that case on facts it was held that the wife had failed to establish that there was any fraud coercion and undue influence practiced. The High Court taking note of Section 151 of the C.P.C. held that the review/recall petition would not lie. The question which fell for consideration of the High Court as noticed in paragraph 15 is whether the review/recall petition was maintainable against a consent decree. The parties led evidence and the Trial Court dismissed the application which was subject matter of challenge before the High Court, at the instance of the wife.
(1) Whether it is right on the part of the First Appellate Court in directing for refund of a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- along with interest when the appellant had established that the amount involved is only a money transaction? (2) Whether in a suit for specific performance a decree can be passed for refund of money involved in a money transaction?
It was held that the decree for cost as well as interest on cost are executable as they have assumed the character of a money decree for costs and cannot be equated with fine or penalty which was imposed on a party by the Court. Further in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Alcon (Supra) in paragraph 37, it was held thus:- "37. It is to be reciprocal advantage of the Courts of all nations to enforce foreign rights as far as practicable. The decision of the Supreme Court in Alcon (Supra) had dealt with a similar contention with regard to interest on cost fallin....
Therefore, the above conduct of the appellant/ applicant was suspicious and it is held that O.S.134/2001 is not a genuine suit. According to the court below, the appellant being the plaintiff in O.S.134/2001 is expected to seek for a decree for specific performance of the contract as his case is that he had paid the entire consideration, but according to him, he is satisfied with the decree for recovery of money only and the said stand of the appellant seriously doubted by the court below especially in the absence of any explanation as to why he did not challenge the decree as per ....
Case No. 11 of 1998 for review of the judgment and decree dated February 15, 1993 passed in the Money Suit No. The Court below, also, allowed the review application and rectified the decree passed in Money Suit No. ( 18 ) THEREAFTER, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court, Howrah allowed the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay in preferring the application under Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure code on January 18, 2002. 8 of 1991 by changing the rate of interest as 22. 25% per annum instead and in place of 2....
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
