CPC order 47: Review (2026)

Explainer · Civil Procedure · CPC

Updated for 2026 · Claw Editorial

Normally, once a court decides a case, the remedy against the decision is an appeal to a higher court. Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is the narrow exception: it lets the same court that passed the decree or order look at it again and correct it, but only on limited grounds. The right comes from Section 114; Order 47 sets out when and how. A review is not a second chance to re-argue the case. It is meant to cure a clear mistake or to take account of evidence that could not be produced earlier. This explainer sets out the grounds, the time limit, and the key case law. Last verified October 2026.

01The short answer

Order 47 lets a person aggrieved by a decree or order apply to the very same court that passed it to review its own decision. Section 114 of the CPC gives the right; Order 47 Rule 1 sets the grounds. Review is allowed only where there is new and important evidence that could not be produced earlier, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason of the same kind.

The application must be made within 30 days of the decree or order, and it is heard, as far as possible, by the same judge who passed it. Review is deliberately narrow: it is not a way to reopen the whole case.

02The three grounds for review

Rule 1 allows review on three grounds:

1. New and important matter or evidence. Something that, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced when the decree or order was passed.
2. A mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. An error that is self-evident and does not need a long process of reasoning to establish.
3. Any other sufficient reason. Read by the courts to mean a reason analogous to the first two, not any reason at all.

03What "error apparent" means

This is the most argued ground. An error apparent on the face of the record is one that is obvious and can be seen without any elaborate argument, for example a clear mistake about a statutory provision or an arithmetical slip in the decree. If the alleged error has to be established through a long chain of reasoning, or depends on a debatable view of the law or facts, it is not an error apparent, and review is not available.

This is the line courts draw to stop review from becoming a rehearing. A wrong decision is corrected by appeal, not by review, unless the error is self-evident.

04Who hears a review, and the time limit

A review application is heard by the same court, and as far as practicable by the same judge, that passed the decree or order. That is because the judge who decided the matter is best placed to see whether there was an error apparent or whether new evidence changes the position.

The time limit is tight. Under Article 124 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a review application must be filed within 30 days from the date of the decree or order. A late application needs a condonation of delay application showing sufficient cause.

05Review is not an appeal

The single most important point about Order 47 is that a review is not an appeal in disguise. The court hearing a review does not sit to decide whether its earlier decision was right or wrong on the merits. It only checks whether one of the narrow grounds exists. If you are unhappy with the result on the merits, the remedy is to appeal, not to seek review.

This is different from the court's inherent powers under Section 151, which fill gaps in procedure, and from a first appeal under Section 96, which is a full rehearing before a higher court.

06Key case law

• Parsion Devi v Sumitri Devi (1997): the Supreme Court held that an error which has to be worked out by a process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record, and that review cannot be used to rehear and correct an erroneous decision.
• S. Murali Sundaram v Jothibai Kannan (2023): the Supreme Court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise and must stay within the limited grounds in Order 47.

07A practical note

Three practical points:

• File within 30 days, or be ready with a strong condonation of delay application.
• Pitch the review on a recognised ground. For new evidence, prove due diligence; for an error, show it is self-evident and does not need argument.
• Do not use review to re-argue the merits. If the real complaint is that the decision is wrong, an appeal is the correct remedy.

08Where Claw fits

Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.

Whether a point amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record, or whether new evidence passes the due-diligence test, is decided by the case law, which is extensive. Claw lets you search more than 30 crore judgments on Order 47, with Supreme Court rulings from 1950 and High Court rulings from 1990, and get results in under 5 seconds. Once a review is filed, Claw lets you track it, its orders and hearings, by party or advocate name across 9,102 courts, benches and forums.

Claw does not use the documents you upload to train its AI models. Create a free Claw account to find review rulings on point and to track a pending matter. To search the wider body of law, see case search across Indian courts.

09Sources and further reading

• India Code (Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 47 and Section 114): indiacode.nic.in
• Order 47 CPC explained (background reading): vidhijudicial.com
• Claw: clawlaw.in

This explainer is general information, not legal advice. The grounds and time limits for review are read strictly, so check the current CPC text and the Limitation Act, and take advice from counsel before you act.

10Frequently asked questions