A revision petition is not a second appeal in disguise. It is a narrow, discretionary, supervisory invocation of the High Court's (or Sessions Court's) power to keep subordinate courts inside the four corners of their jurisdiction. On the civil side it lives in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; on the criminal side it now lives in Sections 438 to 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the successors to Sections 397 to 401 of the old CrPC). The draftsman who confuses the two registers - who pleads the merits as though appealing, instead of pleading the jurisdictional defect that alone unlocks revision - writes a petition that is dismissed at the threshold. This note builds the revision petition from its jurisdictional foundation upward: when it lies, what it must allege, how each part is framed, and the authorities every grounds-paragraph must be measured against.
What revision is - and what it is not
Revisional jurisdiction is a creature of statute and a supervisory one. Its object, the Supreme Court reiterated in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law, and it is to be exercised sparingly and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice. It is emphatically not a vehicle to reappreciate evidence or to substitute the revisional court's view of the facts for that of the trial court. The draftsman's first discipline, therefore, is to stop thinking like an appellant. An appeal opens the whole record on facts and law; a revision opens only the question whether the subordinate court acted within, or strayed outside, its jurisdiction.
This boundary is the difference between a maintainable petition and a wasted court fee. In D.L.F. Housing & Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh, AIR 1971 SC 2324 : (1969) 3 SCC 807, the Court held that the words "illegally" and "with material irregularity" in Section 115 do not reach errors of fact or even errors of law; they reach a breach of a provision of law or a material defect of procedure going to jurisdiction. A subordinate court may decide a question of law wrongly and still be perfectly within its jurisdiction - and if so, revision does not lie. Before drafting a single ground, the draftsman must be able to name the jurisdictional vice. If he cannot, he is in the wrong forum. For the foundational grammar of how any pleading must be built, see our note on the fundamental rules of pleading.
The civil foundation: Section 115 CPC
Section 115 CPC empowers the High Court to call for the record of any case which has been decided by a court subordinate to it and in which no appeal lies, where the subordinate court appears (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. These three limbs - jurisdiction wrongly assumed, jurisdiction wrongly declined, and jurisdiction irregularly exercised - are the only doors through which a civil revision petition enters. Every ground in the petition should be anchored to one of them by name.
Two threshold conditions are cumulative and jurisdictional. First, the matter must have been "decided" by a court subordinate to the High Court. Second, no appeal must lie from the order. Revision is a residual supervisory remedy; it is excluded the moment an appeal is available, because the appellate route is the designed corrective. The draftsman must satisfy himself, and plead expressly, that no appeal (and, where relevant, no specific statutory revision under a special enactment) is open against the impugned order.
"Case decided": the Khanna principle
What counts as a "case" that has been "decided"? The leading authority is Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497. There the trial judge held two suits non-maintainable but, instead of dismissing them, set them down for a later date. The Supreme Court held that an order of a subordinate court is amenable to the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 unless that jurisdiction is clearly barred by a special law or an appeal lies therefrom, and that "case decided" is not confined to a final adjudication of the entire suit - it embraces an order deciding an issue that goes to the root of the matter. The reasoning gave revision a reach into interlocutory territory where the order has decisive jurisdictional consequences.
For the draftsman, Khanna supplies a usable test: identify precisely what was "decided" by the impugned order and show that the decision either rested on, or denied, a jurisdiction the subordinate court did or did not possess. A bare grievance that the order is wrong on the merits will not satisfy Khanna; a demonstration that the order turned on a misapprehension of the court's own competence will.
The post-2002 proviso: revision and finality
The width that Khanna recognised was deliberately narrowed by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999, brought into force on 1 July 2002. The amendment deleted the old clause (b) of the proviso and substituted a proviso that the High Court shall not vary or reverse 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 other proceeding. In other words, revision against a purely interlocutory order, which would not have given finality to the lis even if decided the other way, is now barred.
The leading exposition is Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers, (2003) 6 SCC 659, where the Supreme Court held that the stress under the amended Section 115 is on whether the order would have given finality to the suit or proceeding: if yes, revision is maintainable; if no, it is not. The practical drafting consequence is decisive. Before filing, ask: had the subordinate court decided this very point in my client's favour, would the suit have ended? If the honest answer is no, a Section 115 revision is not maintainable and the petition must be reframed - typically as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition should plead finality expressly, tying the impugned order to the disposal of the suit.
Revision is not an appeal: the discipline of grounds
The single most common reason civil revisions fail is that they are drafted as appeals. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, AIR 1973 SC 76 : (1973) 1 SCC 1, is the corrective authority: the Supreme Court held that where an appellate court has jurisdiction to make the order it makes, the High Court in revision under Section 115 cannot interfere merely because it would have reached a different conclusion - even if the subordinate court's order is right or wrong, that is no ground for revision so long as the court had jurisdiction to pass it. An erroneous decision reached within jurisdiction is not revisable.
This converts directly into a drafting rule. Each ground must allege a jurisdictional vice - assumption of a jurisdiction not vested, refusal of a jurisdiction that was vested, or an illegality or material irregularity in the manner of exercising jurisdiction - and not merely that the finding is wrong. Avoid grounds that read "the learned court erred in holding" followed by a merits argument; prefer grounds that read "the learned court acted without jurisdiction in" or "the learned court materially mis-procedured by." The verb matters: it signals to the bench, in the first line, that you understand the remedy. The same precision of averment that governs a plaint's structure and verification governs a revision's grounds.
Criminal revision under the BNSS
On the criminal side, the revisional architecture has been re-enacted by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Section 438 BNSS (corresponding to old Section 397 CrPC) empowers the High Court and the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before an inferior criminal court to satisfy themselves as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, and as to the regularity of the proceedings. Section 442 BNSS (corresponding to old Section 401 CrPC) confers on the High Court its revisional powers, exercisable on a record called for by itself or otherwise coming to its knowledge.
Three structural features must be reflected in the draft. First, the petition lies against a finding, sentence or order of an inferior criminal court - so the cause title must correctly identify the impugned order and the court that passed it. Second, Section 438(2) BNSS bars the revisional power in relation to any interlocutory order passed in an appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding - mirroring the old Section 397(2) bar - so the petition must show the order is not merely interlocutory. Third, where an application has been made by a person to either the High Court or the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person to the other lies (the bar on a second revision); the draft should disclose that no prior revision has been filed.
The interlocutory-order bar and the Madhu Limaye test
The interlocutory-order bar in criminal revision is not as wide as its words first suggest. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, a three-judge bench held that not every order passed during a trial is "interlocutory" for the purpose of the bar. Between the purely interlocutory order (which the bar protects) and the final order lies a class of intermediate orders - such as an order framing a charge or refusing discharge - which decide important rights and are therefore not hit by the bar. The petition that attacks such an order must plead, with reference to Madhu Limaye, that the impugned order is intermediate or final in character and not a mere step-in-aid that the bar would shield.
This is the criminal counterpart of the civil finality test. The draftsman's task is identical in spirit: characterise the order correctly. Mislabel an intermediate order as appealable and you lose; concede it is interlocutory and you are barred. The grounds must therefore open by fixing the order's true legal character before arguing its illegality.
Scope of interference: the Amit Kapoor guidance
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, is the modern compass for the scope of criminal revisional interference. The Court held that revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and normally on a question of law; that it is not meant for reappreciation of evidence; and that interference on facts is confined to findings that are perverse or based on no evidence. The revisional court does not sit as a court of appeal on fact.
Translated into drafting: if the grievance is genuinely a perverse finding - a finding no reasonable tribunal could reach on the material, or a finding resting on no evidence at all - the petition must say so in those words and plead the want of evidentiary foundation, not merely re-argue the evidence's weight. A ground that invites the High Court to "reassess" or "re-evaluate" testimony is self-defeating; a ground that pleads "the finding is perverse and based on no evidence" is the language the remedy recognises.
Anatomy of the revision petition
A well-drafted revision petition, civil or criminal, follows a settled skeleton. It opens with the cause title naming the court invoked (High Court or, in criminal matters, the Court of Session) and the statutory provision - "Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908" or "Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023." Next comes the memo of parties, in which the array must correspond exactly to the impugned order - the party aggrieved is the petitioner and the opposite party is the respondent, with the parties' description (revisionist/respondent) consistent throughout.
The body comprises a concise statement of facts and the proceeding below (what was decided, by which court, on what date), the grounds of revision (the heart of the petition, each tied to a jurisdictional limb), the prayer, the verification, and the supporting affidavit. The certified copy of the impugned order is annexed; in practice it is the document on which the entire petition turns and must be filed, not merely referred to. Where an interim stay of the impugned order is sought, a separate stay application accompanies the petition - the framing of which follows the discipline set out in our note on drafting of interlocutory applications.
Drafting the grounds of revision
The grounds are where the petition is won or lost. Each ground should be a self-contained, numbered paragraph that (i) identifies the jurisdictional vice, (ii) states the legal proposition breached, and (iii) shows how the breach affected the order. Resist the temptation to plead twenty diffuse grounds; a handful of sharp, jurisdiction-focused grounds is worth more to the bench than a scattergun of merits complaints.
Calibrate the verb to the remedy. For civil revision, frame grounds in the Section 115 idiom: "the learned trial court exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it in entertaining the application" (limb a); "the learned court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by declining to decide the issue of limitation" (limb b); "the learned court acted with material irregularity in deciding the application without affording an opportunity of hearing" (limb c). Because D.L.F. Housing bars revision for mere errors of law or fact, never plead a ground that asks the High Court to correct an intra-jurisdictional error of law; reserve that for appeal. For criminal revision, frame grounds in the BNSS idiom of incorrectness, illegality or impropriety of the finding, sentence or order, and where the attack is on a factual finding, plead perversity in the Amit Kapoor sense. The drafting craft here is closely related to the structured denial-and-grounds technique used in a written statement.
Prayer, verification and affidavit
The prayer must ask for precisely what the remedy permits. In civil revision, the High Court may call for the record and may vary or reverse the impugned order subject to the finality proviso - so the prayer typically asks the court to call for the record, set aside the impugned order, and pass such further order as the merits and justice of the case require, together with any interim stay sought. In criminal revision, the prayer must respect the statutory limits: under Section 442 BNSS (as under old Section 401 CrPC) the High Court cannot in revision convert an acquittal into a conviction, so a complainant's prayer must be framed as a request to set aside the acquittal and remand or order retrial, not to record a conviction. Drafting a prayer the court has no power to grant is a self-inflicted wound.
The verification identifies which paragraphs are true to the deponent's knowledge and which to information and belief, and is signed by the petitioner or counsel. The accompanying affidavit must be sworn by a person conversant with the facts and should not contain argument - it verifies facts, it does not plead law. Defective verification and a vague affidavit are routine grounds of objection in the registry; the draftsman who treats them as formalities invites avoidable delay.
Limitation and the bar on a second revision
The period of limitation for a revision is, as a rule, ninety days from the date of the impugned order under the Limitation Act, 1963, and the petition should plead the date of the order and the date of obtaining the certified copy so that the limitation computation is apparent on the face of the record; where the petition is filed beyond ninety days, an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining each day's delay must accompany it. A revision pleaded without addressing limitation invites summary dismissal.
Equally, the draft must disclose that the bar on a second revision is not attracted. In criminal matters, Section 438(3) BNSS (mirroring old Section 397(3) CrPC) provides that where a person has applied to either the High Court or the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person lies to the other; the petitioner must therefore aver that no prior revision against the same order has been filed before the other forum. In civil matters, the draft should confirm that no appeal lies and that no concurrent statutory revision under a special enactment is available, since the existence of either ousts Section 115.
Revision, Article 227 and choosing the remedy
Because the 2002 amendment closed the revisional door against interlocutory orders, the draftsman must often choose between Section 115 and the constitutional supervisory jurisdiction. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675, the Supreme Court held that the curtailment of revisional power by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999 did not denude the High Court of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and that interlocutory orders excluded from revision remain amenable to the High Court's certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction. (The width of certiorari against subordinate-court orders was later qualified in subsequent decisions, but Article 227 supervision survives.)
The practical lesson for the draftsman is to diagnose before drafting. If the order would have given finality, draft a Section 115 revision. If it would not - a typical interim or procedural order - a revision is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, and the proper instrument is a petition under Article 227 alleging that the subordinate court acted in excess of, or in refusal of, jurisdiction or with grave dereliction of duty. Filing the wrong instrument is not a harmless slip; it costs time, limitation and credibility. For the wider map of pleadings and the drafting craft across instruments, return to the Pleading & Drafting hub and the subject's introduction.
Frequently asked questions
What is the essential difference between a revision and an appeal?
An appeal reopens the whole case on facts and law; a revision is a narrow supervisory remedy confined to jurisdictional error. As held in D.L.F. Housing & Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh (AIR 1971 SC 2324), the words "illegally" and "with material irregularity" in Section 115 CPC do not cover errors of fact or even errors of law; they reach only breaches of law or material procedural defects going to jurisdiction. A wrong decision reached within jurisdiction is not revisable.
Under which provisions does a revision petition lie?
On the civil side, a revision lies to the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On the criminal side, the powers to call for records and to revise now sit in Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the successors to Sections 397 and 401 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure), exercisable by the High Court and, for calling records, by the Sessions Judge.
Can a revision be filed against an interlocutory order?
Generally no. In civil matters, the proviso to Section 115 (as amended with effect from 1 July 2002) bars revision unless the order, decided the other way, would have finally disposed of the suit - see Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers (2003) 6 SCC 659. In criminal matters, Section 438(2) BNSS bars revision against interlocutory orders, but Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551 holds that intermediate orders, such as framing a charge or refusing discharge, are not hit by the bar.
What is the limitation period for filing a revision petition?
The period is ordinarily ninety days from the date of the impugned order under the Limitation Act, 1963. The petition should plead the date of the order and the date the certified copy was obtained. A petition filed beyond ninety days must be accompanied by an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining each day's delay.
How should the grounds of a revision petition be framed?
Each ground should allege a jurisdictional vice, not merely a wrong finding. For civil revision, tie the ground to a Section 115 limb - jurisdiction not vested, jurisdiction wrongly declined, or illegality/material irregularity in exercising jurisdiction. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway (1973) 1 SCC 1 confirms that an order within jurisdiction is not revisable merely because it may be wrong. For criminal revision, plead incorrectness, illegality or impropriety, and where attacking a finding of fact, plead perversity in the sense of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460.
If a revision is not maintainable, what is the alternative remedy?
Where the impugned order would not give finality and a Section 115 revision is therefore barred, the proper instrument is usually a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 the Supreme Court held that the 1999 amendment curtailing revisional power did not affect the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, so interlocutory orders excluded from revision remain amenable to that constitutional jurisdiction.