Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Review cannot be filed by a new counsel who did not argue the original matter — Courts consistently emphasize that a review application must be filed by the same counsel who argued the case initially. Engaging a different or subsequent counsel to file or argue a review is generally considered improper and not maintainable ["Jag Mohan Agarwal VS Kanchan Kumari Jain - Allahabad"], ["Subhash Chand Mehendra (since deceased) through his LRs vs State of H.P. - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Kewal Krishan VS Sham Lal - Current Civil Cases"], ["DR. NAKULAN K.V vs SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT - Kerala"].
Legal precedents support that review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record — Review jurisdiction is restricted to correcting mistakes that are self-evident and do not involve re-argument or re-hearing of the case. Discovery of new evidence or facts not available at the time of the original order does not automatically justify review unless it reveals an error apparent on the record ["Dinesh Kumar Maurya VS Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1557"], ["Bhanu Kumar Jain vs Munna Lal Jain - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Kaluram vs Narayan - Madhya Pradesh"], ["SRI B V MURTHY vs SRI H PARAMESH @ PRATAP - Karnataka"].
Review cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or to re-argue the merits — Courts have held that review proceedings are not meant for re-argument or correcting erroneous decisions on merits. They are meant for rectifying mistakes that are clear and self-evident, not for re-assessing the case on merits or correcting errors based on the counsel’s oversight ["MANISH KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Kaluram vs Narayan - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Sanjeev Kumar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"].
Engaging different counsel for filing review, after the original counsel has argued the case, is discouraged — Several judgments explicitly deprecate the practice of new or subsequent counsel filing review petitions, as it undermines the procedural integrity. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have reiterated that review petitions should be filed by the same counsel who argued the case initially ["Jag Mohan Agarwal VS Kanchan Kumari Jain - Allahabad"], ["Kewal Krishan VS Sham Lal - Current Civil Cases"], ["Sanjeev Kumar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"].
Delay in filing review and procedural lapses are also scrutinized — Courts have dismissed review petitions filed beyond prescribed time limits or without proper explanation for delay, emphasizing that procedural compliance is essential for maintainability ["INDIND00000106661"], ["Dinesh Kumar Maurya VS Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1557"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The consistent judicial stance across multiple judgments is that a review application must be filed by the same counsel who argued the original case, and it should be limited to correcting errors apparent on the record. The practice of engaging new counsel for filing review or using review proceedings as a means for re-argument is strongly deprecated. Courts emphasize procedural correctness, timely filing, and the narrow scope of review, reinforcing that review is not an avenue for rehearing or correcting merits errors through different advocates. This approach upholds the integrity of the judicial process and prevents misuse of review proceedings ["Jag Mohan Agarwal VS Kanchan Kumari Jain - Allahabad"], ["Subhash Chand Mehendra (since deceased) through his LRs vs State of H.P. - Himachal Pradesh"], ["DR. NAKULAN K.V vs SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT - Kerala"], ["Sanjeev Kumar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"].
In the complex landscape of Indian litigation, parties often seek to challenge court judgments through review petitions. But what happens when a new lawyer steps in after the original hearing? A common query arises: review cannot be filed by new counsel. This question touches on fundamental principles of procedural law under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), particularly Order 47 Rule 1. Understanding this restriction is crucial for litigants, lawyers, and anyone navigating post-judgment remedies.
This article breaks down the legal consensus, drawing from key judicial precedents. Note that while we provide general insights based on established rulings, this is not specific legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for your case.
Review petitions are not appeals in disguise. They offer a narrow window to correct specific errors in a judgment, as outlined in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and Section 114. Courts have consistently emphasized their restrictive scope. As one ruling states: 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 CPC. Dinesh Kumar Maurya VS Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1351
Permissible grounds typically include:- Discovery of new and important evidence not known earlier despite due diligence.- Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.- Any other sufficient reason.
However, an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Dinesh Kumar Maurya VS Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1351Tata Steel Ltd. VS Commissioner Trade Tax, Lucknow - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 772SUMITRABEN ANILKUMAR SHAH VS DIVYABHANUSINGHJI SAJJAN SINGHJI - 1999 0 Supreme(Guj) 57
Review cannot be used for rehearing arguments, introducing new pleas, or addressing counsel's negligence. Repetition of old arguments or procedural lapses does not qualify. Chandrabali VS State - 1979 0 Supreme(All) 254Malleeswari VS K. Suguna - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1650
Judicial precedents uniformly hold that a review petition cannot be filed or maintained by a counsel who did not argue or appear in the original proceedings. This rule prevents abuse of process and ensures finality of judgments.
For instance, in a key case: Filing of the ‘No Objection Certificate’ would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the Review Petition. Dinesh Kumar Maurya VS Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1351
Similarly: Recourse to review petition in the facts and circumstances of the case was not permissible... it was not open to them to seek a ‘review’ of the order... on the grounds detailed in the review petition. Dinesh Kumar Maurya VS Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1557
This principle is echoed across rulings:- Review petition cannot be entertained at behest of a Counsel or a person, who had not appeared before Court or was not party in main case. Subhash Chand Mehendra (since deceased) through his LRs. VS State of H. P.- It is well-settled that a review application ought not to have been filed by a Counsel who has not argued the matter but ought to have been filed by the same Counsel who has earlier argued the matter. Jai Singh VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 354
Allowing new counsel to file reviews could open a Pandora's Box, leading to unending litigation and rearguing merits. Courts disapprove of changing counsel without prior consent or NOC, viewing it as an attempt to introduce fresh arguments. Subhash Chand Mehendra (since deceased) through his LRs. VS State of H. P.P. K. Umaiba VS Registrar, Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 1906
In one matter: Though the review application is filed by the same Advocate on record but by engaging different Senior Counsel, the review application is sought to be argued... but cannot occupy the scope. Bridge & Roof Company (India) Limited, Kolkata vs Adarsh Noble Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 6431
Even third parties or non-parties are barred: Review petition is necessarily confined to the parties to the original proceedings and... it is not open to a stranger to the proceedings to seek a review. Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam, (S. N. D. P. Yogam), Kollam, Represented By Its General Secretary, Vellappally Natesan VS Sathyan M. S, S/o Sudayan - 2019 Supreme(Ker) 947
Other sources reinforce this stance:- New Documents in Review: Introducing fresh evidence, like a Pay Fixation Certificate, does not warrant review unless it meets strict criteria. Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing. Pradeep Kumar Singh VS Union of India - 2023 Supreme(Del) 4251- No Rehearing by Change of Counsel: A review petition cannot be filed for re-hearing of the entire matter by changing the counsel as well as observations on the new facts which were not available before the Court below. SADIQ HUSSAIN VS ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, DEHRADUN - 2007 Supreme(UK) 574- Counsel Negligence Not a Ground: Claims of original counsel's absence or error fall outside review jurisdiction. Appropriate remedies lie in appeals, not reviews. Dinesh Kumar Maurya VS Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1557Sivakumar.G vs State of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57717
In a tribunal context under Motor Vehicles Act, review is limited even with inherent powers: Review on limited grounds as mentioned above is permissible. New India Assurance Company Ltd. VS Rekha Paul, W/o Sri Niranjan Paul - 2011 Supreme(Gau) 193 But this does not extend to counsel substitution issues.
One outlier notes flexibility in delay condonation during COVID, but maintainability by new counsel remains scrutinized. Karanti Goyal vs M/o Statistics - 2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 98
Exceptions are minimal:- If the new counsel obtains explicit NOC from prior counsel and demonstrates a patent error.- Procedural defects in tribunal matters, but not for reargument. New India Assurance Company Ltd. VS Rekha Paul, W/o Sri Niranjan Paul - 2011 Supreme(Gau) 193
Generally, courts reject reviews for:- Counsel negligence or absence. Dinesh Kumar Maurya VS Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1351Dinesh Kumar Maurya VS Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1557- New arguments or de novo hearings. Sivakumar.G vs State of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57717- Limitation or unrelated cost waivers. Sivakumar.G vs State of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57717
To avoid dismissal:1. Stick to Original Counsel: File reviews through the lawyer who argued the case, with proper vakalatnama.2. Pinpoint Valid Grounds: Focus on apparent errors or new evidence, supported by records.3. Opt for Appeals: For substantive issues, negligence claims, or procedural lapses, pursue higher forums.4. Seek NOC if Changing Counsel: Prevent technical objections. Dinesh Kumar Maurya VS Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1351
Legal practitioners must heed: Such practice of engagement of new Counsel for filing review/recall/modification must have been depreciated—Granting such permission would be gross misuse of process of law. Subhash Chand Mehendra (since deceased) through his LRs. VS State of H. P.
In summary, review petitions generally cannot be filed by new counsel who did not participate in the original proceedings. This upholds the sanctity of judgments and prevents dilatory tactics. Courts prioritize finality, confining reviews to egregious, self-evident errors under CPC Order 47 Rule 1. Dinesh Kumar Maurya VS Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1351Dinesh Kumar Maurya VS Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1557Subhash Chand Mehendra (since deceased) through his LRs. VS State of H. P.
If facing a adverse order, evaluate appeals or curative petitions instead. Always document due diligence and consult experts early.
References:1. Dinesh Kumar Maurya VS Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1351 - Core ruling on new counsel bar.2. Dinesh Kumar Maurya VS Chancellor, Lucknow University Lko. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1557 - Review not for procedural lapses.3. Subhash Chand Mehendra (since deceased) through his LRs. VS State of H. P. - Non-maintainability by new counsel.4. Others as cited above.
Stay informed, act strategically—judicial processes demand precision.
#ReviewPetition, #CPCOrder47, #LegalReviewRules
This cannot be agitated by a subsequent counsel who has no concern with the matter till the final disposal of the case. Therefore, such practice of engagement of new counsel for filing review/recall/modification must have been depreciated. ... In the instant case, the matter was argued on behalf of applicants by original counsel, and review was filed by Sri N.B. Nigam, Advocate who was not the original counsel of the applicants, and....
Suraj Lal; (2017) 122 ALR 144, in which Court has clearly held that review application filed by a new counsel who had not argued the writ petition is not maintainable. ... In the instant case, the matter was argued on behalf of applicants by original counsel, and review was filed by Sri. N.B. Nigam, Advocate who was not the original counsel of the applicants, and even after filing the review, the applicants have changed the #HL_STAR....
Suraj Lal; (2017) 122 ALR 144, in which Court has clearly held that review application filed by a new counsel who had not argued the writ petition is not maintainable. ... In the instant case, the matter was argued on behalf of applicants by original counsel, and review was filed by Sri. N.B. Nigam, Advocate who was not the original counsel of the applicants, and even after filing the review, the applicants have changed the #HL_STAR....
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 present Review Petition has been filed against the order of Writ Appeal and not the Writ Petition. ... In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. ... Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the corr....
The objection raised by the Respondent in the present MA that the Review Application is non est and barred by limitation cannot be accepted. ... The Applicant (original respondent) relies upon the pleadings already filed in the Review Application and the rejoinder. The Review Application was originally filed on 02.12.2021 through email, as physical filing was suspended during the COVID- 19 period. ... Learned counsel for the applicant in MA submitted that the Responde....
been filed by the, same Counsel who has argued the matter.” ... Union of India, 2018 SCC Online All. 6411, in which this Court held that: “It is well-settled that a review application ought not to have been filed by a Counsel who has not argued the matter but ought to have been filed by the same Counsel who has earlier argued the matter. ... In Review Petition Defective No. 281 of 2008 titled U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. versus Anil Ku....
replica to the new facts pleaded in the written statement cannot be refused. ... Learned counsel for review petitioner was unable to suggest any clear-cut rule by which the boundary between the two classes of errors could be demarcated. ... Nevertheless, in view of contentions of counsel for review petitioner, it would be appropriate to first reproduce impugned judgement here: “1. ... In the backdrop of above well-settled legal position, all that has been argued by counsel#....
The document now filed with the review petition is a PFC dated 17/18.12.2018. ... of permitting a party to introduce a new document at the stage of a review petition. ... In light of this, the PFC/LPC now filed by the Petitioner cannot take his case any further warranting review of the judgement, in the absence of an error apparent on the face of it. 14. ... (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of th....
Review application can only be filed on the ground that the Court had committed an error, which is apparent on the face of the record and an error committed by the Counsel by failing to notice a relevant case-law and failing to place the same before the Court cannot be a ground for review of the judgment ... Thereafter, the Counsel withdrew the SLP without seeking any liberty and it was dismissed as such on 10.04.2023. The review application has been filed#H....
Though the review application is filed by the same Advocate on record but by engaging different Senior Counsel, the review application is sought to be argued. ... The points have been coined and/or engineered at the time of argument and eloquently advanced before this court in pursuit of seeking review as the judgment dated 18th June, 2024 contains a patent error and on the discovery of a new and important document, the same cannot occupy the ... In an adversarial s....
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Another, (1997) 9 SCC 736 held as follows: 5. This Court considered these issues on merits elaborately after hearing the parties. During the course of hearing, when this Court posed a question to Dr. A. Thiagarajan, the learned Senior Counsel and Mr. S. Aravind Raj, learned counsel on record, whether they have obtained a “no objection” from the learned counsel, who appeared in the writ appeal. Their response was “negative.” 6. The learned counsels appeared in the wr....
According to the learned Sr.Counsel a review petition can be filed only by a party to the suit in which the order sought to be reviewed has been passed and it cannot be filed by a third party. Therefore, the learned Sr.Counsel submitted that the application for leave to review may be dismissed in limine as not maintainable, without going into the merits or otherwise of the review petition submitted along with the application for leave to review. Hence it is contended that the petitioners are debarred from seeking review of an order in which they are not parties to the litig....
4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that there is no apparent error on the face of record, therefore, the review petition is not maintainable. It has also been submitted that the review petition cannot be filed by a counsel who had not argued the matter. Therefore, the review petition is not maintainable on this ground also. In this regard, he has relied upon the case of Kaniz Fatima vs.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the non-applicant cannot be accepted that power of review is not provided by the statute, therefore, it cannot review its own order. As considered by me earlier, wide powers are vested with the Tribunal under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, review on limited grounds as mentioned above is permissible.
A review petition cannot be filed for re-hearing of the entire matter by changing the counsel as well as observations on the new facts which were not available before the Court below. So far as, the merit of the review petition is concerned, the review petition can be filed only for consideration of important matters or evidence which, by mistake or error on the face of the record could not be considered when the order was passed.
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
