Section 114 — Review
Not every error needs a higher court. § 114 lets a person who feels aggrieved ask the very court that decided to look again — where (a) an appeal lay but none was filed, (b) no appeal lies at all, or (c) the decision is on a reference from a Court of Small Causes. That court may make such order as it thinks fit. The grounds are narrow — new evidence, an error apparent on the record, or other sufficient reason (Order XLVII).
How to read Section 114
Three situations (a)(b)(c)
An aggrieved person may seek review where (a) an appeal was allowed but not preferred, (b) no appeal is allowed, or (c) the decision is on a reference from a Court of Small Causes.
To the SAME court
The application goes to the court which passed the decree or made the order — not a higher court. That is what makes review different from an appeal.
On narrow grounds (Order XLVII)
Review lies only on limited grounds: new and important evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason (Order XLVII, r. 1).
The bare Act
Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved—
may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.
→ Grounds & procedure: Order XLVII (r. 1 grounds — new & important evidence not within knowledge despite due diligence / error apparent on the face of the record / any other sufficient reason). Review ≠ appeal: same court, narrow grounds.
Note. § 114 stands as in the original Code. “Subject as aforesaid” carries over the “conditions and limitations as may be prescribed” from § 113 — here, the conditions of Order XLVII.
Key terms decoded
A request to the same court to re-examine its own decree or order — not an appeal to a higher court.
Carrying over § 113’s “conditions and limitations as may be prescribed” — for review, the conditions of Order XLVII.
One who has suffered a legal grievance from the decision — wrongly deprived of something, or wrongly subjected to a liability.
An appeal lay against the decree/order, but the party did not file one — review is available instead.
The decree/order is not appealable at all — review is the route to a second look.
A decision given on a reference made by a Court of Small Causes — also open to review.
Review is heard by the very same court (ordinarily the same judge) — the defining feature of the remedy.
(i) new and important evidence not within knowledge after due diligence; (ii) a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) any other sufficient reason.
The picture — the same court looks again
§ 114 is the second look. Where an appeal would carry the case up, a review keeps it here — the same court re-opens its own decree or order. It is open in three situations, but only on the narrow grounds of Order XLVII, and the court “may make such order as it thinks fit”.
Section 114, part by part
The common frame — who may apply, to whom, and with what result: a person aggrieved applies to the same court, which may make such order as it thinks fit.
Clause (a) — an appeal was allowed by the Code, but the party did not file one. Review is open instead.
Clause (b) — the decree or order is not appealable at all. Review is the only route to a second look.
Clause (c) — a decision given on a reference from a Court of Small Causes is also open to review.
How the parts work as one body
Three doors, one court, narrow grounds
Connected provisions
Section 114 is the middle corrective of Part VIII — review looks in (the same court), between reference (§ 113, up) and revision (§ 115, down). Its grounds and procedure are in Order XLVII; clause (a) presupposes an appeal under § 96/§ 104 that was not filed.