Reference, revision and review are the three corrective devices that operate alongside, but distinctly from, the ordinary appeal. The HP Courts Act, 1976 itself contains no section captioned "reference", "revision" or "review" — its thirty sections constitute the courts and distribute appellate business. The substantive machinery lives in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (sections 113 and Order 46 for reference, section 115 for revision, and section 114 read with Order 47 for review), which the Act's courts apply. Understanding the topic therefore means mapping the CPC's three devices onto the Himachal hierarchy of the Civil Judge, the District Judge and the High Court constituted under the Act.
The statutory scheme: Act constitutes courts, CPC supplies the devices
The HP Courts Act, 1976 (Act 23 of 1976) is a constitutive statute. Sections 3 to 19 create and grade the classes of courts — the Court of the District Judge, of the Additional District Judge and of the Civil Judge — and Chapter II (sections 20 to 22) distributes appellate jurisdiction. Nowhere does the Act confer a free-standing power of reference, revision or review. Those powers are drawn from the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which applies of its own force to suits and proceedings in the civil courts the Act constitutes. The examiner's framing is therefore comparative: the Act tells you which court sits where in the ladder; the CPC tells you how reference, revision and review move along that ladder. Section 29 of the Act, empowering the High Court to make rules regulating procedure, is the only Act-specific overlay, and it cannot enlarge the substantive scope fixed by the Code.
The appellate baseline against which the three devices are read
Reference, revision and review are best understood as departures from the appeal, so the appellate baseline must be fixed first. Under section 20, an appeal from a decree or order of a District Judge or Additional District Judge exercising original jurisdiction lies to the High Court. Under section 21, an appeal from a Civil Judge lies to the District Judge where the value of the original suit did not exceed two lakh rupees, and to the High Court in any other case — a value-based bifurcation that ties into pecuniary jurisdiction. The appeal carries a full rehearing on law and fact. As the Supreme Court explained in Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, AIR 1963 SC 698, "a right of appeal carries with it a right of rehearing on law as well as fact", whereas revision is a far narrower supervisory check. That contrast is the analytical spine of this topic.
Reference: section 113 CPC and Order 46
Reference is the device by which a subordinate civil court — a Civil Judge or even a District Judge sitting under the Act — itself refers a question of law to the High Court for opinion. It is governed by section 113 CPC read with Order 46. The defining feature is that the reference is made by the court, not at a party's instance and not against a final adjudication. Under Order 46 Rule 1, a reference is discretionary where the court entertains a reasonable doubt on a question of law or usage having the force of law arising in a pending suit, appeal or execution in which no appeal lies, or in which an appeal lies but has not been preferred. The court may either stay proceedings or pass a contingent decree. The mandatory limb is the proviso to section 113: where a court is satisfied that the case involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation, and is of opinion that it is ultra vires but it has not been so declared by the High Court or the Supreme Court, it must state a case and refer it. The three conditions are cumulative — necessity to decide the validity question to dispose of the case, the court's own opinion of invalidity, and absence of a prior binding declaration. On a reference the High Court does not decide the suit; it answers the question and may, under Order 46, alter, cancel or set aside the decree or order in the case out of which the reference arose.
Revision: section 115 CPC and the supervisory function
Revision is the High Court's supervisory power under section 115 CPC over subordinate courts in cases decided where no appeal lies. The High Court may call for the record of any case so decided and intervene where the subordinate court has (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 three clauses are jurisdictional in character. Crucially, revision is not a second appeal: in Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, AIR 1963 SC 698, the Court held that in revision "the High Court can see that there has been no miscarriage of justice and that the decision is according to law", but cannot re-appreciate evidence as in appeal. The word "according to law" refers to the decision as a whole, not to errors of law or fact simpliciter.
Revision confined to jurisdictional error, not error of law
The boundary of clause (c) of section 115 is the most heavily litigated point. In Pandurang Dhondi Chougule v. Maruti Hari Jadhav, AIR 1966 SC 153, the Supreme Court held that a mere error of law, however gross, does not by itself attract section 115; the words "illegally or with material irregularity" govern the manner in which jurisdiction is exercised, not the correctness of the conclusion. A wrong decision on a question of law within jurisdiction is not revisable. Conversely, the reach of "case" is wide: in Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497, the Court held that an interlocutory order, such as one deciding that a suit is not maintainable without finally disposing of it, is a "case which has been decided" within section 115, so revision lies even though the suit continues. Together these decisions fix revision as a jurisdictional, not merits-based, corrective — a point that distinguishes it sharply from the full appellate rehearing available under sections 20 and 21 of the Act.
The 1999 proviso narrowing revision against interlocutory orders
The CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999, recast section 115 to curb its use as a delaying tactic against interlocutory orders. The amended proviso bars the High Court from varying or reversing any order made in the course of a suit or proceeding except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceeding. The earlier alternative limbs — that the order would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury — were deleted by the 1999 amendment. The practical effect within the Himachal hierarchy is that a litigant before a Civil Judge can no longer revise routine procedural orders; only an order whose acceptance would have ended the litigation is amenable. This narrowing makes Major S.S. Khanna good only on the meaning of "case decided", while the availability of revision against interlocutory orders is now controlled by the finality test in the proviso.
Review: section 114 CPC and Order 47
Review is unique among the three because it is exercised by the same court that passed the decree or order, not by a superior court. It is governed by section 114 CPC read with Order 47. A person aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but none has been preferred, or from which no appeal is allowed, or by a decision on a reference, may apply for review to the court that made it. Order 47 Rule 1 confines the grounds to three: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced at the time of the decree; (ii) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) any other sufficient reason. The Civil Judge or District Judge constituted under the Act exercises this power over its own orders; the High Court reviews its own orders made under sections 20, 21 or in revision.
Review and the "error apparent on the face of the record"
The second ground is the most examined. In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137, the Supreme Court held that an error apparent must be self-evident and not one "which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions". A debatable point of law is therefore outside review. The outer limits of "any other sufficient reason" were fixed in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 674, where the Court reiterated that review is not a disguised rehearing: a party cannot seek review merely to reargue the case and obtain a fresh decision; the finality of a judgment is departed from only where circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary. Review thus corrects patent slips, not errors of judgment that ought to have gone up on appeal.
Distinguishing reference, revision and review
The devices are distinguished by who invokes them, who decides, and the permissible ground. Reference is initiated by the court itself and decided by the High Court; its trigger is doubt on a question of law or the validity of a statute. Revision is invoked by a party and decided by the High Court; its trigger is a jurisdictional defect in a case where no appeal lies, narrowed since 1999 to orders that would finally dispose of the suit. Review is invoked by an aggrieved party and decided by the same court; its trigger is new evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. None is a substitute for appeal: Hari Shankar separates revision from the rehearing an appeal entails, and Northern India Caterers separates review from a fresh hearing. Read against the Act, the appeal forums in sections 20 and 21 remain the primary corrective; reference, revision and review are the supplementary safety valves the CPC supplies.
Interplay with the Himachal court hierarchy and Article 227
Mapping the devices onto the Act's ladder clarifies the forums. A Civil Judge entertaining doubt refers under section 113 to the High Court; a party aggrieved by an unappealable order of a Civil Judge or District Judge seeks revision under section 115 from the High Court; and a party may seek review from whichever of those courts passed the order. Because revisional jurisdiction is statutory and confined, the High Court's constitutional power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution stands alongside section 115 and is not displaced by the 1999 amendment — though it too is exercised sparingly and on jurisdictional grounds. The Act's own contribution is structural: by fixing through the constitution of civil courts who sits where, it determines which court is "subordinate" for section 115 and which court is the "same court" for review, anchoring the CPC's abstract devices to a concrete Himachal hierarchy.
Frequently asked questions
Does the HP Courts Act, 1976 itself contain provisions on reference, revision or review?
No. The Act's thirty sections constitute and grade the civil courts and distribute appellate business (sections 20 to 22). Reference, revision and review are supplied by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — section 113 with Order 46, section 115, and section 114 with Order 47 respectively — which the Act's courts apply.
What is the difference between an appeal and a revision under section 115 CPC?
An appeal carries a full rehearing on law and fact, while revision is a narrow supervisory check confined to jurisdictional defects. In Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, AIR 1963 SC 698, the Supreme Court held that in revision the High Court only sees that the decision is "according to law" and that there is no miscarriage of justice; it cannot re-appreciate evidence.
Can a mere error of law be corrected in revision under section 115?
No. In Pandurang Dhondi Chougule v. Maruti Hari Jadhav, AIR 1966 SC 153, the Court held that an error of law within jurisdiction does not attract section 115; the words "illegally or with material irregularity" govern the manner of exercising jurisdiction, not the correctness of the conclusion.
How did the 1999 amendment change revision against interlocutory orders?
The CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999, inserted a proviso barring the High Court from varying or reversing an interlocutory order unless that order, if made in favour of the applicant, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceeding. The earlier limbs of failure of justice or irreparable injury were deleted.
What qualifies as an "error apparent on the face of the record" for review?
It must be self-evident. In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137, the Court held that an error requiring a long-drawn process of reasoning, on points admitting of two opinions, is not an error apparent and cannot ground a review.
When must a subordinate court make a mandatory reference to the High Court?
Under the proviso to section 113 CPC, when the case involves the validity of an Act, Ordinance or Regulation, the court is of opinion that it is ultra vires, and there is no prior declaration of invalidity by the High Court or Supreme Court. All three conditions must be satisfied; otherwise reference under Order 46 Rule 1 is discretionary.