Difference Between Appeal, Revision and Review in Indian Law

In the Indian legal system, a judgment or order of a court is not always final. The law provides several remedies to challenge, correct, or reconsider decisions of courts. Three important concepts in this regard are Appeal, Revision, and Review. Though they may sound similar, each has a different purpose, scope, and procedure. Understanding the difference helps a litigant choose the correct legal remedy.

What is an Appeal?

An appeal is a statutory right given by law to a person who is aggrieved by a judgment or order of a lower court. In an appeal, a higher court is requested to examine the correctness of the decision of the lower court.

In an appeal, the higher court can look into:

The facts of the case

The evidence on record

The application of law

The procedure followed by the lower court

The appellate court has wide powers. It may confirm, modify, or set aside the judgment. It can also order a retrial in some cases. However, an appeal is not automatic in every case; it can be filed only when a statute specifically provides a right of appeal.

For example, if a Magistrate in a criminal case convicts an accused, that person may file an appeal before the Sessions Court or High Court depending on the nature of the offence and sentence.

What is a Revision?

A revision is a more limited remedy compared to an appeal. It is a supervisory jurisdiction exercised by a higher court—generally the Sessions Court or High Court—to ensure that the lower court has not acted illegally, irregularly, or without jurisdiction.

In revision, the court does not re-hear the entire case or reassess all the evidence. Instead, it checks:

Whether the lower court had proper jurisdiction

Whether there was any material irregularity in procedure

Whether there is a manifest error of law causing miscarriage of justice

Revision is usually filed under Sections 397–401 CrPC in criminal matters or Section 115 CPC in civil matters. Unlike an appeal, a revision is not a matter of right; it is a discretionary power of the higher court. The court may interfere only when there is a serious legal or jurisdictional error.

For example, if a Magistrate passes an order without following mandatory procedure, the aggrieved party may file a revision before the Sessions Court or the High Court.

What is a Review?

A review is a request made to the same court which passed the judgment or order, asking it to re-examine its own decision in limited circumstances. The idea behind review is that courts are human institutions and may sometimes commit an obvious error which needs correction without going to a higher court.

A review is permissible only on specific grounds, such as:

Error apparent on the face of the record

Discovery of new and important evidence which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence

Any other sufficient reason recognized under the law

A review is not meant to give a second round of arguments or to change a decision simply because a party is dissatisfied. It only corrects self-evident mistakes. In civil matters, review is governed by Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). For the Supreme Court and High Courts, it is also traceable to Article 137 of the Constitution and their specific rules.

For example, if a court mistakenly mentions a wrong survey number or party name in the judgment, or overlooks an important statutory provision, a review may be filed.

Core Differences in Simple Terms

The difference between appeal, revision and review can be understood in simple terms:

An appeal is a full challenge to the judgment before a higher court, where both facts and law can be re-examined.

A revision is a limited supervisory check by a higher court to correct jurisdictional errors or serious legal irregularities, without re-trying the whole case.

A review is a narrow remedy before the same court, only to correct an obvious mistake or consider new evidence that could not be produced earlier.

Appeal is generally a right given by statute. Revision is a discretionary power of the higher court. Review is an exceptional remedy to correct apparent errors.

When Should a Litigant Consider Which Remedy?

A litigant should consider:

Appeal, when they believe that the judgment is wrong on facts, evidence, or law and the law provides a right of appeal.

Revision, when there is no appeal provided, but the lower court has acted without jurisdiction, ignored important legal provisions, or committed a serious procedural irregularity.

Review, when there is a clear, self-evident mistake in the judgment or some important material was overlooked by the same court.

Choosing the wrong remedy can result in delay and extra expense. It is therefore advisable to consult an advocate to decide whether appeal, revision, or review is appropriate in a particular case.

Conclusion

Appeal, revision and review are three distinct remedies designed to ensure that justice is not defeated by error, irregularity or oversight. Each operates at a different level and with different powers. While appeal allows a broad re-examination by a higher court, revision is a narrower supervisory jurisdiction, and review is a restricted tool available in the same court.

A clear understanding of these concepts helps litigants and even law students appreciate how the judicial system provides multiple safeguards against incorrect or unjust decisions.