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 as a creature of statute - The courts have consistently held that review is not an inherent power but a statutory creature, requiring express statutory provision to be entertained. In the absence of such express powers, review petitions are not maintainable. For instance, the Supreme Court in Latafat Ullah Khan AIR 1978 SC 1814 followed earlier judgments in Chunibhai and Harbhajan Singh, emphasizing that review cannot be entertained without specific statutory provisions ["Mohan Lal Agarwal VS Commissioner of Income Tax - Allahabad"]. Similarly, Karam Singh AIR 1966 SC 641 held that review orders without statutory authority are ultra vires and illegal ["Mohan Lal Agarwal VS Commissioner of Income Tax - Allahabad"].
Absence of express review powers leads to non-entertainment - Courts have reiterated that without explicit legal authority, review petitions cannot be entertained, especially against judicial or quasi-judicial orders. This principle is reinforced across multiple judgments, including the Allahabad High Court and other High Courts, which have dismissed review petitions on the ground that the law does not confer such powers unless explicitly provided ["Mohan Lal Agarwal VS Commissioner of Income Tax - Allahabad"], ["MOHAN LAL AGARWAL VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 1372"], ["COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS MISS LOPAMUDRA MISRA - Orissa"].
Inherent powers are not a substitute for statutory review - The courts have clarified that inherent powers cannot be invoked to bypass the statutory requirement for express review provisions. For example, in ["Subash Das VS State of Tripura - Gauhati"], the court dismissed a review petition, emphasizing that inherent powers are limited and cannot be used to review finalized judgments without statutory backing ["Subash Das VS State of Tripura - Gauhati"].
Distinction from appellate powers - Review is distinguished from appellate jurisdiction; the latter involves correcting errors by a higher authority, whereas review is not a re-hearing but a limited correction, and only where statutory powers exist. The courts have consistently held that review cannot be exercised in the absence of such statutory powers, and attempts to do so are illegal ["Mohan Lal Agarwal VS Commissioner of Income Tax - Allahabad"], ["MOHAN LAL AGARWAL VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 1372"].
Judicial consensus - The principle that review requires express statutory authority is well-settled and reiterated across various judgments, including those dealing with civil, criminal, and administrative law. The courts have emphasized that the doctrine of separation of powers and statutory mandates restrict courts from exercising review powers unless explicitly conferred ["P.ALAGARSAMY vs THE STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT - Madras"], ["BALAKRISHNAN vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY - Madras"], ["MANIKANDAN.K vs MANAGING DIRECTOR - Madras"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The consistent judicial stance across the cited judgments confirms that review petitions cannot be entertained in the absence of explicit statutory powers. Courts have underscored that review is not an inherent jurisdiction but a statutory remedy, and any attempt to exercise review powers without clear legal authority is illegal and ultra vires. This principle preserves the separation of powers and maintains the rule of law by ensuring that courts do not overstep their statutory bounds ["Mohan Lal Agarwal VS Commissioner of Income Tax - Allahabad"], ["MOHAN LAL AGARWAL VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 1372"], ["Subash Das VS State of Tripura - Gauhati"].
In the intricate world of Indian jurisprudence, the power to review judicial or quasi-judicial orders is not something courts wield freely. Imagine a scenario where a party, dissatisfied with a court's decision, files a review petition—only for it to be dismissed outright because the court lacked the authority to even consider it. This raises a critical question: provide judgments which hold that review petition cannot be entertained in the absence of express powers of review?
This blog post delves into this pivotal legal principle, drawing from landmark Supreme Court and High Court rulings. We'll examine why review is strictly a 'creature of statute,' how orders passed without such powers are nullities, and insights from related cases. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The foundational rule is clear: review petitions cannot be entertained without express statutory or rule-based powers. Review is not an inherent judicial power; it must be conferred explicitly or by necessary implication. As held in multiple judgments, The power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. Lily Thomas VS Union Of India - 2000 3 Supreme 601
This principle echoes across cases like Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. v. Pradyumansinhji Arjunsinhji (AIR 1970 SC 1273) and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh (AIR 1966 SC 641). In the latter, the Supreme Court ruled that absent statutory provisions, review is impermissible, rendering such orders ultra vires and void. Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj VS State Of Assam - 2001 4 Supreme 363Lily Thomas VS Union Of India - 2000 3 Supreme 601
Key points from leading judgments include:- Review lacks inherent authority and demands legal conferment. Lily Thomas VS Union Of India - 2000 3 Supreme 601Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj VS State Of Assam - 2001 4 Supreme 363- Courts consistently deem review petitions non-maintainable without specific provisions. Kunhayammed VS State Of Kerala - 2000 5 Supreme 181U. P. S. R. T. C. VS Imtiaz Hussain - 2005 8 Supreme 488MOHAN LAL AGARWAL VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 1372- Orders void for jurisdictional defects or statutory non-compliance cannot be reviewed. Sunkam Shankaraiah VS State of A. P. - 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 669
When authorities attempt review sans statutory backing, the resulting orders are nullities from inception. In Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya (AIR 1987 SC 2186), the Court declared: In the circumstances, it must be held that the Vice-Chancellor acted wholly without jurisdiction. The said order... was a nullity. Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj VS State Of Assam - 2001 4 Supreme 363
Similarly, Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor (2020) and State of Orissa v. Commissioner of Land Records (1998) affirm that quasi-judicial bodies cannot revisit orders without express power. Kunhayammed VS State Of Kerala - 2000 5 Supreme 181 In Krishna Ashram Educational Trust v. District Judge (AIR 1995 All 415), the absence of review provisions made orders final and irrevisable. U. P. S. R. T. C. VS Imtiaz Hussain - 2005 8 Supreme 488
This extends to violations of natural justice. Kranti Associates (2010) and Vishnu Agarwal (2011) stress that unreasoned orders or those breaching fairness are invalid ab initio, ineligible for review. Sunkam Shankaraiah VS State of A. P. - 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 669
A string of decisions reinforces this: Harbhajan Singh, Patel Narshi Thakershi, Maj. Chandra Bhan Singh, Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta, and Sunita Jain (2008). In Hari Singh Mann (2001), courts clarified that without express conferment, review petitions fail, and void orders resist validation. MOHAN LAL AGARWAL VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 1372
The distinction between procedural and substantive review is vital—only law-specified errors qualify. Surya Corporation vs Competent Authority The District Deputy Registrar Of Co-operative Societies - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 697
Recent High Court rulings echo this in specialized domains. Under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Section 11), the Delhi High Court in cases like KUSH RAJ BHATIA Vs M/S DLF POWER AND SERVICES LIMITED - 2022 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 5595 and Kush Raj Bhatia vs DLF Power & Services Ltd. held: no power of review can be exercised in the absence of any express provision conferring this power of review. High Courts lack inherent review powers for jurisdictional orders; substantial review demands specific conferment. KUSH RAJ BHATIA vs M/S DLF POWER AND SERVICES LIMITED IND_Delhi_ARBP-869_2022 2022_DHC_5349
Even ex-parte procedural orders might invoke inherent powers sparingly, but merit-based decisions require statutory review—absent which, petitions falter. This aligns with the principle that review isn't for re-hearing disputes.
Courts repeatedly caution against treating review as a backdoor appeal. As in State of Jharkhand VS Gajendra Prasad Himansu - 2022 Supreme(Jhk) 262, a review petition cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. It may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. Grounds are narrow: new evidence (post-due diligence), apparent errors, or analogous reasons. Mukesh Kumar Sahu VS State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary - 2019 Supreme(Jhk) 870Shakambri Industries Private Limited through its Manager Shri Ravindra Kumar Thakur son of late Subhash Thakur @ Late Subhash Tiwari VS State of Jharkhand - 2018 Supreme(Jhk) 937
In a Jharkhand Public Works case, the court dismissed a frivolous review, imposing costs, emphasizing specific grounds only. State of Jharkhand VS Gajendra Prasad Himansu - 2022 Supreme(Jhk) 262 Successive reviews are barred, as in a Motor Vehicles Act dispute where a second petition was rejected for finality. Rajila @ Rajila Ayoob, W/o. Ayoob VS Oriental Insurance Company Limited - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 163
Under Article 226, non-parties (e.g., interveners) cannot seek review, and petitions must show apparent errors—not re-argument. Folguni Laskar VS State of Tripura - 2016 Supreme(Tri) 127
While void ab initio orders are nullities, review cannot cure them without statutory power. Exceptions are rare, tied to explicit law. No broad inherent power exists, even under constitutional writs, without CPC Order XLVII alignment.
Legal professionals should:- Verify statutory review provisions before filing.- Challenge void orders directly via certiorari or appeal, not review.- Avoid frivolous petitions risking costs. State of Jharkhand VS Gajendra Prasad Himansu - 2022 Supreme(Jhk) 262- In arbitration or administrative matters, prioritize appeals. Kush Raj Bhatia vs DLF Power & Services Ltd.
Indian law's consensus is unequivocal: review petitions cannot be entertained absent express powers. Orders lacking this are nullities, review no substitute for appeal. This upholds finality, curbing endless litigation. Lily Thomas VS Union Of India - 2000 3 Supreme 601U. P. S. R. T. C. VS Imtiaz Hussain - 2005 8 Supreme 488
Key Takeaways:- Review demands explicit statutory conferment. Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj VS State Of Assam - 2001 4 Supreme 363- Absent power, petitions fail; orders void. Sunkam Shankaraiah VS State of A. P. - 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 669- Narrow grounds only—no appeals in disguise. State of Jharkhand VS Gajendra Prasad Himansu - 2022 Supreme(Jhk) 262
Stay informed on evolving precedents. For tailored guidance, seek expert counsel.
#ReviewPetition #IndianLaw #StatutoryReview
A party is entitled to assail the judgment only by the mode as indicated in the statute and in absence of express provision of review, it cannot be entertained for the reason that review is practically the hearing of an appeal by the same officer who decided the case. ... Latafat Ullah Khan AIR 1978 SC 1814, the apex Court followed the earlier referred two judgments in Chunibhai (supra) and Harbhajan Singh (supra)and observed that it is well-settled that rev....
A party is entitled to assail the judgment only by the mode as indicated in the statute and in absence of express provision of review, it cannot be entertained for the reason that review is practically the hearing of an appeal by the same officer who decided the case. ... Latafat Ullah Khan AIR 1978 SC 1814, the apex Court followed the earlier referred two judgments in Chunibhai (supra) and Harbhajan Singh (supra)and observed that it is well-settled that rev....
This was explained by stating that if a party has been proceeded ex- parte or such like orders are made, the Court in exercise of its inherent powers can review such Orders, but any Order given on merit would entail substantial review which cannot be exercised in the absence of specific conferment of ... However, this cannot be a ground for review when a detailed Order has been made on its facts to hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertai....
However, this cannot be a ground for review when a detailed Order has been made on its facts to hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 11 of the Act, 1996. ... It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication and no power of review can be exercised in the absence of any express provision conferring this power of review. ... This was explained by stating that if a party has been proc....
A party is entitled to assail the judgment only by the mode as indicated in the Statute and in absence of express provision of review, it cannot be entertained for the reason that review is practically the hearing of an appeal by the same Officer who decided the case. ... Latafat Ullah Khan and Others the Apex Court followed the earlier referred two judgments in Chunnibhai and Harbhan Singh (supra) and observed that it is well settled that review is ....
(i) Even without express provision of the separation of powers,the doctrine of separation of powers is an entrenched principle in the Constitution of India. ... Undoubtedly, the separation of powers under the Indian Constitution has been narrated and settled in umpteen number of judgments. ... When the Institutions are also thriving hard to provide speedy redressal, the litigants cannot be permitted to bypass the alternative remedies available under the statute.
substantial review which cannot be exercised in the absence of specific conferment of the power of review to the Court. ... However, this cannot be a ground for review when a detailed Order has been made on its facts to hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 11 of the Act, 1996. 32. ... It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication and no power of review#H....
substantial review which cannot be exercised in the absence of specific conferment of the power of review to the Court. ... However, this cannot be a ground for review when a detailed Order has been made on its facts to hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 11 of the Act, 1996. 32. ... It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication and no power of review#H....
(i) Even without express provision of the separation of powers,the doctrine of separation of powers is an entrenched principle in the Constitution of India. ... When the Institutions are also thriving hard to provide speedy redressal, the litigants cannot be permitted to bypass the alternative remedies available under the statute. ... Undoubtedly, the separation of powers under the Indian Constitution has been narrated and settled in umpteen number of judgments.
(i) Even without express provision of the separation of powers,the doctrine of separation of powers is an entrenched principle in the Constitution of India. ... Undoubtedly, the separation of powers under the Indian Constitution has been narrated and settled in umpteen number of judgments. ... When the Institutions are also thriving hard to provide speedy redressal, the litigants cannot be permitted to bypass the alternative remedies available under the statute.
It has consistently been held in the aforesaid judgments that a review petition cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. It may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. The power of review may be exercised on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, even after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review or could not be produced by him at the time when the original order was made.
The review petition filed initially through the same counsel was rejected by this Court and it has become final. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, a second review petition cannot be entertained.
It has consistently been held in the aforesaid judgments that a review petition cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, even after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review or could not be produced by him at the time when the original order was made. It may also be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; or on any such analogous ground.
The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, even after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the original order was made. It has consistently been held in the aforesaid judgments that a review petition cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. It may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any such analogous ground.
A judgment can be reviewed only if the applicant can establish that (i) discovery of the new and important evidence which could not be produced at the time of hearing, (ii) error apparent on the face of the record, (iii) for any other sufficient reason. A review petition cannot be entertained in disguise of an appeal, whereby a judgment is reheard and corrected.
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
