In short. A review petition asks the same Delhi High Court bench that decided your case to correct its own judgment, but only for an error apparent on the face of the record, important new evidence you could not produce earlier despite due diligence, or a similar sufficient reason. It is not a second appeal. It must usually be filed within 30 days. Many reviews are decided at the first or second hearing. This week, get the judgment, mark the exact error, and decide whether review, a Letters Patent appeal or the Supreme Court is the right route.
Is this your situation?
- The judgment records that your counsel conceded a point that was never conceded.
- The court decided on the basis of a document, a date or a figure that is plainly wrong on the record.
- A binding statutory provision or rule that decides the case was not noticed at all.
- After the judgment, you found a document that would have changed the result and that you could not have found earlier with reasonable effort.
- Your writ petition was disposed of without the court dealing with a relief you had clearly prayed for.
- An order was passed against you without notice or because your case was shown wrongly in the cause list.
- You are on the winning side and the other party has filed a review against you.
What a review can do, and what it cannot
A review is a request to the same court, and normally the same judge or bench, to correct a mistake in its own decision. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) gives the power, and Order 47 sets out the grounds and the procedure. In writ petitions, the Delhi High Court exercises a similar power as a court of record, applying the same principles.
The power is narrow by design. A review is not an appeal in disguise, and the court will not rehear the case because one side thinks the judgment is wrong. The Supreme Court put it plainly in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997): an error that has to be found out by a long process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record, and a review cannot be used to have an erroneous decision reheard and corrected. If your real complaint is that the court weighed the evidence or interpreted the law against you, the remedy is usually an appeal, not a review.
That is the first thing to accept before filing, and it saves money. Reviews that try to reargue the case are dismissed at the first hearing, sometimes with costs, and they can use up time you needed for an appeal. Reviews that point to one clear, checkable mistake are taken seriously, and some succeed.
The three grounds under Order 47 Rule 1
- Discovery of new and important matter or evidence. Something that, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within your knowledge or could not be produced when the decree or order was made. You must explain why it could not be found or produced earlier, and show that it would likely have affected the result.
- Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. An error that is self-evident on reading the record, without needing elaborate argument. Examples include a wrong date used to compute limitation, a figure misread from a document, a concession recorded that was never made, or a binding statutory provision that was overlooked.
- Any other sufficient reason. Read by the courts as a reason analogous to the first two, not any reason at all. The Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club (2005) accepted that a misconception of fact or law by the court, or a concession wrongly made by counsel, could be a sufficient reason in a proper case.
What counts as an error apparent on the face of the record
The classic test comes from Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale (1960): an error that has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may be two opinions is not an error apparent on the face of the record. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013), the Supreme Court gathered the principles together, listing when review is and is not maintainable. Among the points it made: a repetition of old and overruled arguments is not enough, minor mistakes of inconsequential import are not enough, and review is not maintainable merely because the court could have taken a different view.
In practice, errors that support a review tend to be of a few kinds. The judgment proceeds on a fact that the record contradicts, such as a date of order, a number in a sale deed, or the name of the party who filed a document. The judgment records a concession or a statement of counsel that was not made, and contemporaneous material shows it. The judgment overlooks a statute, rule or notification that directly governs the question, which was cited or is obvious on the record. Or the judgment does not deal with a relief or ground that was clearly raised and argued, leaving part of the case undecided.
When Advocate B.K. Singh reads a judgment for a possible review, he looks for the one paragraph where the error sits and asks whether a judge reading that paragraph alongside the record would see the mistake in a few minutes. If the answer needs half an hour of argument, the matter is more suited to an appeal. That test, rough as it is, is close to how benches approach review petitions.
Grounds that do not justify a review
- Rearguing the case. Saying the court should have accepted your interpretation, or should have given more weight to a piece of evidence, is an appeal argument.
- New arguments not raised earlier. A point that could have been argued at the hearing but was not is generally not a ground for review, unless it goes to jurisdiction or is a plain error of law on the record.
- A later change in the law. The Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 says that if the decision on a question of law is reversed or modified by a later decision of a superior court, that is not a ground for reviewing the judgment.
- Evidence you could have found earlier. Fresh material that was available with reasonable effort, but which you did not look for or did not produce, does not satisfy the due diligence condition.
- Disagreement with the reasoning. A judgment can be wrong without containing an error apparent on its face. Being wrong is a ground for appeal.
The provisions that govern a review
Section 114, CPC
Gives the substantive right to apply for review to a person aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but has not been preferred, from which no appeal is allowed, or by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes.
Order 47 Rules 1 to 9, CPC
Rule 1 lists the grounds and bars review where the party has already appealed. Rule 4 lets the court reject the application, or grant it only after notice to the other side. Rule 5 requires the same judge to hear it if still available. Rule 7 makes an order rejecting review not appealable. Rule 9 bars a review of an order made on a review application.
Article 124, Limitation Act 1963
Thirty days from the date of the decree or order for a review application before a court other than the Supreme Court. Delay can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for sufficient cause, with an application explaining it.
Articles 215 and 226, Constitution
The High Court is a court of record. The Supreme Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab (1963) recognised the High Court's power to review its orders in writ proceedings. Section 141 CPC, by its Explanation, does not apply CPC procedure to Article 226 proceedings, but the Order 47 principles are applied by analogy.
Section 403, BNSS 2023 (old Section 362 CrPC)
Once a criminal court has signed its judgment or final order, it cannot alter or review it except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. This bar applies to the High Court's criminal judgments too.
Section 152, CPC
Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors from accidental slips or omissions, can be corrected at any time by the court on its own or on application. No review is needed for these.
Review of writ petition judgments
A large share of review petitions in the Delhi High Court arise from writ judgments: service matters, government contracts, land and allotment disputes, tax writs and challenges to orders of authorities. The Code of Civil Procedure does not strictly govern writ proceedings, but the court applies the same tests, and a review in a writ is judged by the Order 47 standards. The Delhi High Court registers these as review petitions in the writ matter and lists them before the bench that decided the writ.
Writ judgments often dispose of petitions with directions, such as 'consider the representation within eight weeks'. Where the court disposed of the petition without dealing with a specific relief or ground that was pleaded and pressed, a review may lie on the basis that part of the case was left undecided. Where the court recorded that the petitioner did not press a relief, and that is wrong, a review backed by the contemporaneous record is the right course.
Where a single judge decided the writ, a Letters Patent appeal to a Division Bench is often available as well. Our page on the Letters Patent appeal against a single judge explains when that appeal lies. Choosing between the two is discussed below.
Criminal judgments: why review is almost never available
In criminal cases the rule is strict. Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (old Section 362 CrPC) says that once a court has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, it cannot alter or review it, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The High Court cannot use its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (old Section 482 CrPC) to get around this bar. A party unhappy with a criminal judgment of the Delhi High Court, whether in a criminal appeal, a revision or a quashing petition, usually has to go to the Supreme Court.
There are narrow exceptions. Courts have recalled orders passed without hearing a party who was entitled to be heard, or obtained by fraud on the court, treating this as correcting a procedural defect rather than reviewing the merits. And interlocutory orders, such as bail orders, are not final judgments: a fresh bail application can be filed on a change of circumstances, which is not a review. Our pages on criminal appeals and on the Supreme Court of India cover the routes that are actually open after a criminal judgment.
Review, Letters Patent appeal or Supreme Court: choosing the route
Order 47 Rule 1 allows a review only where the party has not filed an appeal. If you file a Letters Patent appeal or a first appeal, you generally cannot seek a review of the same decision on the same grounds. So the choice has to be made early, usually within the first two or three weeks after the judgment.
A review suits a judgment that is sound in its general approach but contains a specific, checkable error, such as a wrong date or an overlooked provision. An appeal suits a judgment that is wrong in its reasoning or its appreciation of evidence. Where both kinds of complaint exist, it is usually better to take the appeal and raise everything there, unless the error is so obvious that the same bench is likely to correct it quickly.
The Supreme Court question is more technical. If you file a review and it is dismissed, a special leave petition should challenge both the main judgment and the order dismissing review; the Supreme Court held in DSR Steel v. State of Rajasthan (2012) that a petition against the review order alone is generally not maintainable. Time spent in a genuine review is usually taken into account when the Supreme Court considers delay, but that is a matter of discretion, not a right. If you went to the Supreme Court first and your special leave petition was dismissed at the threshold without leave being granted, the High Court judgment does not merge into the Supreme Court's order, and a review in the High Court may still be maintainable, as explained in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) and Khoday Distilleries v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane (2019). Once leave is granted and the appeal is decided, the High Court judgment merges and a review there is no longer possible. The guide on going to the Supreme Court against a Delhi High Court judgment gives the Supreme Court side of this.
Which bench hears your review, and why
Order 47 Rule 5 requires the review to be heard by the same judge or judges who decided the case, if they are still attached to the court and available. The reason is simple: the judge who wrote the judgment is best placed to see whether something was overlooked. A review of a single judge's judgment goes to that judge; a review of a Division Bench judgment, such as one in a Letters Patent appeal or a writ against a CAT order, goes to the same Division Bench.
If the judge has retired, been elevated or transferred to another High Court, the review is listed before the bench that holds the relevant roster under the Chief Justice's allocation. Petitioners sometimes hope a new judge will take a fresh view, but the test does not change: a different judge applies the same narrow standard and is if anything more reluctant to disturb a colleague's judgment on a debatable point.
On the original side, reviews of judgments in suits, probate cases and commercial suits are heard by the judge who decided them. Orders of a Joint Registrar on procedural matters are not challenged by review in the ordinary course but by an appeal to the judge in chambers under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 2018, within the time those Rules fix. Judgments of district courts in Delhi are not reviewed by the High Court at all: a review against a district court decree goes to that district court, and the High Court's role is by appeal or revision, explained on our pages on civil first and second appeals and Article 227 and civil revision.
Step by step: filing a review petition in the Delhi High Court
Get the judgment and the record
Download the judgment from the court's website and apply for a certified copy if needed. Collect the pleadings, the documents on record and any written submissions, because the error must be shown from the record itself.
Identify the error precisely
Mark the paragraph of the judgment where the mistake sits and the page of the record that shows it. Write the ground in two or three sentences. If you cannot, the review is probably an appeal argument.
Decide between review and appeal
Check whether an appeal lies and the time for it. Remember that filing an appeal usually bars a review on the same grounds, and that a special leave petition needs to challenge the main judgment as well as any review order.
Draft and file within 30 days
The review petition sets out the judgment, the grounds under Order 47, and the record showing the error, supported by an affidavit. If more than 30 days have passed, file an application for condonation of delay with reasons. Pay the court fee and file through e-filing or the filing counter.
Apply for interim relief if needed
A review does not stay the judgment. If the judgment is being enforced against you, file an application for stay with reasons why the review has a real chance.
Argue it at the first hearing
The bench reads the petition and may reject it at once, or issue notice to the other side if it sees a prima facie error. Be brief and specific. If notice is issued, the other side replies and the review is heard.
If allowed, the case is reheard
When a review is allowed, the judgment or the relevant part is recalled and the matter is heard again on that point, sometimes immediately, sometimes on a later date.
Time limits, typical durations and court fee
| Stage | Time limit or typical time | Court fee (general) |
|---|---|---|
| Review petition in a civil suit or appeal | 30 days from the decree or order (Article 124) | Linked to the fee paid on the plaint or appeal; check the current Court Fees Act schedule |
| Review petition in a writ matter | 30 days is applied; explain any delay | Fixed court fee; check the current amount |
| Application for condonation of delay | Filed with the review if late | Small fixed fee |
| First hearing | Usually within a few weeks of filing | No further fee |
| Decision on review | Often at the first or second hearing; contested reviews can take months | No further fee |
| Letters Patent appeal (alternative) | Must be filed within the limitation period for LPAs; check the current period | Court fee for the appeal |
| Special leave petition to the Supreme Court | 90 days from the judgment, subject to condonation | Supreme Court court fee and Advocate-on-Record costs |
Documents for a review petition
- Copy of the judgment or order to be reviewed, and a certified copy where required
- The petition, plaint, written statement or counter affidavit, and rejoinder from the original case
- The specific document, order sheet, notification or statutory provision that shows the error
- Written submissions filed at the original hearing, if any
- Order sheets showing what was recorded at each hearing
- The new evidence, if review is sought on that ground, with an affidavit explaining why it could not be produced earlier
- Vakalatnama, and if you are changing counsel, a no objection from the earlier advocate
- Application for condonation of delay with supporting documents, if filed late
- Application for stay, if the judgment is being enforced
Recall, restoration and correction: when you do not need a review
Not every problem with an order calls for a review petition. Clerical and arithmetical mistakes, such as a wrong property number, a misspelt name or a wrong amount copied into the operative part, can be corrected under Section 152 CPC by a simple application, at any time.
Orders passed without notice, or in your absence because of a mistake in the cause list, a wrong listing or an inability to appear for a genuine reason, are usually set aside by an application for recall. Courts distinguish between a procedural review, which corrects a defect in how the order came to be passed, and a substantive review on the merits. The Supreme Court recognised this distinction in Grindlays Bank v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal (1980). A recall application is judged less strictly than a review, because it does not ask the court to change its view.
If your case was dismissed for non-prosecution, the remedy is an application for restoration, not a review. The guide on restoring a case dismissed for non-prosecution explains that route and its time limits.
Mistakes that sink review petitions
The most common is filing a review that is really an appeal. Petitions that run to forty pages, repeat every argument and add some new ones, are dismissed quickly. A strong review is short and points to one or two errors with page references to the record.
The second is missing the 30-day limit, or filing late without a proper explanation. Courts do condone delay, but a review filed months later, with no reason other than that the client was considering options, is rarely entertained.
The third is losing the appeal by filing a review. If the review takes two months to be dismissed, the time for a Letters Patent appeal may have run, and while delay can be explained, the explanation that you were pursuing a review that was never maintainable may not satisfy the court. Decide the route first.
The fourth is criticising the judge. A review petition goes to the same judge. Pointing out a factual mistake respectfully, with the record, is effective. Suggesting the judge ignored arguments or was careless is not, and it can lead to costs.
A made-up example: a wrong date in a limitation finding
Here's a made-up example. Sunita, who runs a small manufacturing unit in Okhla, files a writ petition against a Delhi government department that rejected her claim for a refund. A single judge dismisses the petition, holding that her representation was filed two years after the rejection order and was therefore stale. The judgment records the date of the rejection order as 12 March 2022.
In fact, the rejection order on record is dated 12 March 2024, and the department's own counter affidavit admits that date. The '2022' in the judgment comes from a typing error in an index. Sunita's lawyer files a review petition within three weeks, attaching the order, the counter affidavit and the index, and pointing out that on the correct date the representation was filed within a month.
The judge issues notice, the department does not dispute the date, and the review is allowed. The writ is restored and heard on merits. Whether Sunita finally gets the refund depends on the merits, which the review did not decide. The names, dates and facts are invented to show the kind of error a review can correct.
If the other side has filed a review against you
A review petition is not an automatic reopening. If you won and the losing side files a review, the court may reject it without even issuing notice to you. If notice is issued, file a short reply pointing out that the petition reargues the case, raises new points, or relies on a later change in law barred by the Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1. Attach the passages of the judgment that already dealt with the points now raised.
Keep an eye on enforcement as well. The filing of a review does not stay the judgment, and you can proceed to enforce it unless the court grants a stay. Where the other side is filing a review mainly to delay compliance, say so in your reply, and ask for costs if the review is dismissed. In writ matters where the government is directed to do something within a fixed time, a pending review without a stay does not suspend that time. If the order is ignored, our page on contempt petitions for non-compliance explains the next step.
Advocate B.K. Singh's advice to a winning party served with a review is usually to keep the reply short. A long reply can make a weak review look as if it raises arguable points.
What to do this week
Count 30 days from the date of the judgment. Download it and read it alongside the record, and mark the paragraph where you think the error is and the page that shows it. Decide, with advice, whether the complaint is an error the same bench can correct or an appeal point. If it is an appeal point, note the limitation for a Letters Patent appeal or a special leave petition and work to that date instead. The guide on how to file a review petition in the Delhi High Court gives a shorter checklist.
Official copies of orders and case status are available on the Delhi High Court's own website; this is a private law firm's site and not the court's.
To have your judgment and record read for a possible review, or for updates on the law on review petitions, contact Advocate B.K. Singh.
Frequently asked questions
What is the time limit for filing a review petition in the Delhi High Court?
Thirty days from the date of the judgment or order, under Article 124 of the Limitation Act. If you are late, file an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons. Courts are stricter with long, unexplained delays.
Can the same judge hear my review petition?
Yes, Order 47 Rule 5 requires the same judge or bench to hear it if still available. If the judge has retired or been transferred, it goes to the bench holding the relevant roster. The test for review stays the same either way.
Can I file a review petition and an appeal at the same time?
Generally no. Order 47 Rule 1 allows review only where you have not appealed. If you file a Letters Patent appeal or first appeal, a review of the same decision on the same grounds is usually not maintainable.
Can a criminal judgment of the High Court be reviewed?
No, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, because Section 403 BNSS (old Section 362 CrPC) bars it. Recall is possible in narrow cases, such as an order passed without hearing a party entitled to be heard. Otherwise the remedy is the Supreme Court.
Does filing a review stop the other side from enforcing the judgment?
No. A review does not operate as a stay. You need to apply for and obtain a stay order from the court, showing that the review has a real chance of success.
Can I appeal if my review petition is dismissed?
An order rejecting review cannot be appealed under Order 47 Rule 7. You can approach the Supreme Court by special leave petition, but it should challenge both the main judgment and the review order, not the review order alone.
My SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Can I still file a review in the High Court?
If the special leave petition was dismissed at the threshold without leave being granted, the High Court judgment does not merge, and a review in the High Court may still be maintainable. If leave was granted and the appeal was decided, the High Court judgment merges into the Supreme Court's decision and review in the High Court is not possible.
Is a new Supreme Court judgment a ground to review my case?
No. The Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 says that a later reversal or modification of the law by a superior court is not a ground for review. The judgment stands unless it is challenged in appeal within time.