Difference between Revision and Review
Basis |
Revision |
Review |
---|---|---|
Meaning |
Revision refers to a broader idea in which the High Court is in charge of reviewing and perhaps changing rulings made by lower courts. The High Court serves as the revision authority, and the scope of revision is wider, encompassing areas outside the purview of the same court or judge. |
To evaluate, reexamine, or look again at a legal situation is to engage in the act of review. It is specifically a judicial reevaluation carried out by the same court and judge who issued the original ruling. The main goals of this procedure are to correct mistakes or take care of case details that were neglected. |
Objective |
Revision’s main objective is to resolve situations in which subordinate courts’ actions exhibit illegality, irregularity, or improper behavior. In its function as a revisional court, the High Court seeks to review documents pertaining to “any order” and rectify any errors or injustices found. |
The main goal of a review is to fix any mistakes made in an order that could have an effect on a party’s interests. It is a procedure that allows the same judge and court to review their own ruling, guaranteeing the integrity and impartiality of the legal system. |
Provision |
The High Court’s revisional competence is derived legally from Section 115 of the CPC. It outlines the situations under which the High Court may amend decisions rendered by lower courts. |
Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, lays out the legal basis for the review procedure. The factors and conditions that can lead to the initiation of a review are clearly defined in this section. |
Authority |
Revision may be started by an offended party or the High Court itself (suo motu). The revising authority is the High Court, which offers a higher court platform for case re-evaluation. |
A party directly interested in the case usually initiates a review, which is handled by the same court and judge. The original judgment’s issuing court’s boundaries contain the power for review. |
Timeline |
Section 115 sets a ninety-day statute of limitations from the date of the relevant judgment or decree for the filing of a revision application. |
Section 114 of the CPC does not provide a deadline for submitting a review application. Nonetheless, it is often anticipated that the application will be submitted within a fair amount of time following the judgment’s announcement. |
Types of Errors Resolved |
The High Court has the authority to make revisions, primarily in cases involving jurisdiction. It steps in when subordinate courts’ procedures exhibit any illegality, irregularity, or improper behavior. |
There are a few reasons why a review may be conducted, such as the identification of fresh and significant information or proof, obvious inaccuracies or errors on the surface of the record, and other good causes. The main goal of a review is to fix mistakes in the first court’s ruling. |
Court Engagement |
The High Court’s engagement in the revision process adds an outside, higher-level judicial authority to the proceedings. The High Court, as the revision body, approaches the matter from a different angle. |
The court that issued the ruling also handles the review internally. Examining the case again is the same judge who issued the initial decree. |
Difference between Revision and Review
Revision and Review are the terms under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Revision involves a comprehensive re-examination and potential amendment of a decision by a higher court, aimed at rectifying errors or injustices. In contrast, Review focuses on evaluating the procedural correctness of a lower court’s decision by a higher court, without delving deeply into the case’s merits.
Table of Content
- What is Revision?
- What is Review?
- Difference Between Revision and Review
- Conclusion
- Revision and Review-FAQs