What is the Limitation on the Scope of Revision in High Court?

Introduction

The High Courts in India exercise revisional jurisdiction in both civil and criminal matters to ensure that subordinate courts act within the bounds of their authority and follow the law. This power of revision is neither appellate nor original; it is a supervisory jurisdiction designed to correct jurisdictional errors, illegalities, or irregularities committed by subordinate courts. While this power is significant, it is not unlimited. The scope of revision in the High Court is tightly circumscribed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for civil matters, and Sections 397–401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for criminal matters.

This article will deeply examine the limitations imposed on the High Court’s revisional powers, explain how courts have interpreted these limitations, and discuss the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and various High Courts.

Legal Basis of High Court’s Revisional Jurisdiction

1. Civil Revision under Section 115 CPC

Section 115 CPC confers upon the High Court the power to revise any case decided by a subordinate civil court in which no appeal lies, if the subordinate court:

(a) Exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law;
(b) Failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or
(c) Acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

The 1999 and 2002 amendments to CPC further restricted the scope of this section by stating that the High Court shall not vary or reverse an order deciding an issue unless such order would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding.

2. Criminal Revision under Sections 397–401 CrPC

In criminal matters, the High Court may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court to satisfy itself of the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. However, Section 397(2) expressly prohibits revision against interlocutory orders.

3. Constitutional and Supervisory Jurisdiction

Apart from statutory provisions, the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution also supplements its revisional power but even this supervisory jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used as an appellate power.

Nature of Revisional Power

Revisional jurisdiction is not appellate in nature. While an appeal allows a full rehearing on facts and law, a revision only allows examination of the legality, correctness, or propriety of an order. The High Court cannot substitute its own views on facts for those of the trial court.

Key Limitations on the Scope of Revision in High Court

1. No Reappreciation of Evidence

One of the most important limitations is that the High Court cannot re-examine or reappreciate evidence in revision.

The High Court may only see whether the findings of the lower court are based on evidence and are legally sustainable.
It cannot substitute its own conclusions on disputed facts.
Case Law: Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) – The Supreme Court held that revisional powers are extremely limited and cannot be equated with appellate powers.

2. No Revision Against Interlocutory Orders

Civil Matters: After the 1999 and 2002 CPC amendments, Section 115 CPC bars the High Court from interfering with interlocutory orders unless such order, if decided differently, would finally dispose of the case.
Criminal Matters: Section 397(2) CrPC clearly prohibits revision against interlocutory orders.
This means routine procedural orders cannot be challenged in revision.

3. Only Jurisdictional Errors Can Be Corrected

The High Court may interfere only where the subordinate court:

Exercised jurisdiction it did not possess.
Refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it.
Acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction.

It cannot interfere merely because it disagrees with the subordinate court’s view.
Case Law: D.L.F. Housing & Construction Co. v. Sarup Singh (1970) – Held that revisional power cannot be used as a cloak for an appeal.

4. No Revision Where Appeal Lies

The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked where the law provides for an appeal. Revision is meant for cases where no appeal is available.
Example: If a decree is appealable under Section 96 CPC or Section 374 CrPC, a revision cannot be filed.

5. Limited Scope in Criminal Matters

Even under Sections 397–401 CrPC, the High Court:

Cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
Cannot impose a harsher sentence in revision unless an appeal or notice of enhancement of sentence is given.
Case Law: K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1962) – Explained limits of revisional power in criminal cases.

6. Doctrine of Double Revision

Once a revision has been filed and decided, a second revision on the same matter is generally barred. Under Section 397(3) CrPC, if one party has already approached the Sessions Court in revision, it cannot subsequently approach the High Court for another revision on the same order.

7. Cannot Be Used for Short-Circuiting Trials

Revisional power cannot be used to bypass or short-circuit regular trials or proceedings, especially in criminal matters. The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against using revisions to stall proceedings unnecessarily.
Case Law: V.C. Shukla v. State (1980) – The Supreme Court discouraged the practice of invoking revisional jurisdiction to delay trials.

8. Revisional Power is Discretionary

Even when a case falls within the parameters of Section 115 CPC or Section 397 CrPC, the High Court is not bound to interfere. The power is discretionary and is exercised only when gross injustice or abuse of process of law is evident.

9. No New Pleas or Evidence

Generally, parties cannot introduce new grounds, pleas, or evidence in a revision petition unless necessary to correct a jurisdictional defect. This distinguishes revision from an appeal where new grounds may sometimes be allowed.

10. Delay and Laches

Although no strict limitation period exists in the CPC for revisions, courts apply the Limitation Act principles. Unreasonable delay or laches can be a ground for refusing revision.

Practical Effect of These Limitations

Civil Context:
A civil revision under Section 115 CPC is now confined to cases where an order:

Decides a jurisdictional issue;
Decides a legal issue that finally disposes of the suit;
Causes a grave injustice which cannot be remedied otherwise.

Criminal Context:
A criminal revision under Sections 397–401 CrPC is available mainly against final orders or serious errors of jurisdiction, but not for routine procedural or interlocutory orders.
Strategic Consideration for Lawyers:
Lawyers must carefully assess whether the order being challenged actually falls within the permissible scope of revision. Misuse of revision petitions leads to dismissals and can also result in cost imposition.

Case Law Summaries on Limitation of Revision

Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat (1970): Emphasized the doctrine of merger and clarified limits of High Court’s revisional powers.
Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon (1964): Held that Section 115 CPC cannot be treated as conferring appellate jurisdiction.
State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999): Stated that High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and not meant to act as an appellate court.

Comparison Between Appeal and Revision (Briefly for Context)

Feature	Appeal	Revision
Nature	Statutory right	Discretionary remedy
Scope	Questions of fact & law	Only legality & jurisdiction
New evidence	Sometimes allowed	Not allowed except rare cases
Interlocutory orders	Often appealable (with leave)	Generally not revisable

FAQs on Limitation of Revision in High Court

Q1. Can the High Court reassess evidence in a revision petition?
No. The High Court cannot reassess or reappreciate evidence; it can only examine the legality or propriety of the findings.

Q2. Can interlocutory orders be challenged in revision?
Generally no. Both Section 115 CPC and Section 397(2) CrPC restrict revisions against interlocutory orders.

Q3. What if an appeal is available but the party files a revision?
The High Court will dismiss the revision petition because revision is not a substitute for an appeal.

Q4. Can the High Court convert a revision into an appeal?
Yes, in exceptional cases and with the consent of parties, but ordinarily, each remedy is distinct.

Q5. Is there a time limit for filing revision petitions?
The CPC does not specify one, but High Courts apply the Limitation Act principles. For criminal revisions, the general period is 90 days under Article 131 of the Limitation Act.

Q6. Does the High Court have to interfere if jurisdictional error is shown?
No. The power is discretionary. Even if jurisdictional error is shown, the High Court may decline interference if it does not cause substantial injustice.

Key Takeaways

The High Court’s revisional powers are supervisory, not appellate.
Jurisdictional errors, material irregularities, and illegality are the primary grounds for interference.
No reappreciation of evidence or substitution of factual findings is permitted.
Interlocutory orders are largely immune from revision.
The High Court’s power is discretionary and exercised sparingly to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion

The limitations on the scope of revision in the High Court are deliberate and rooted in legislative intent. The purpose of revision is to keep subordinate courts within their jurisdiction, not to provide another layer of appeal. Thus, the High Court exercises revisional jurisdiction only in cases of jurisdictional errors, material irregularities, or manifest injustice, and it does so sparingly and cautiously.

These restrictions ensure a balance between the need for supervisory oversight and the necessity of judicial efficiency. Practitioners and litigants must understand these limitations to avoid misuse of revisional powers and to approach the High Court only in appropriate cases.

Important: Kindly Refer New Corresponding Sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, (BNS); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, (BNSS); & Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, (BSA) for IPC; CrPC & IEA used in the article.

Disclaimer: This information is intended for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a qualified lawyer for personalized advice specific to your situation.

Advocate J.S. Rohilla (Civil & Criminal Lawyer in Indore)

Contact: 88271 22304