Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
Revision under Section 115 and Article 227 Distinguished
Both are supervisory powers of the High Court, and both are used to correct a subordinate forum that has gone outside its authority. But one is a statutory power that the legislature created and has twice narrowed, and the other is a constitutional power of superintendence that no statute can touch. After the 1999 amendment confined Section 115 to orders whose correction would have ended the suit, much of what was once filed as a revision is now filed under Article 227. These notes set out both, and the limits on each.
What each power reaches, and what only Article 227 reaches
1. The Two Provisions
§ Section 115, CPC 1908 (in substance) (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such 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, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: Provided that the High Court shall not vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other 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. (2) No decree or order against which an appeal lies shall be varied or reversed under this section. (3) A revision shall not operate as a stay unless the High Court stays the proceeding. |
§ Article 227 of the Constitution (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may call for returns, make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts, and prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept. (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces. |
2. The Differences
Basis | Section 115, CPC | Article 227, Constitution |
|---|---|---|
Source | A statute, which the legislature may amend or repeal | The Constitution; no statute can narrow it |
Over whom | COURTS SUBORDINATE to the High Court | ALL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS within its territory, except armed forces tribunals |
When it lies | Only where NO APPEAL lies: Section 115(2) | Not barred by the availability of an appeal, though it is not to be used as a substitute for one |
The ground | The three jurisdictional grounds in the section | To keep courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority; exercised on jurisdictional excess, flagrant disregard of law, or grave failure of justice |
Interlocutory orders | The 1999 proviso: not varied unless correcting the order would have finally disposed of the suit | The proviso does not apply; the constitutional power is unaffected by it |
Merits | Not reopened | Not reopened |
Of the court's own motion | The High Court may call for the record | Superintendence is inherently exercisable suo motu |
Limitation | Ninety days, Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963 | No period prescribed, but delay is a discretionary bar |
Nature | Discretionary | Discretionary, and exercised sparingly |
3. Why Article 227 Has Taken Over
§ Three reasons • The 1999 proviso. It removed from revision every interlocutory order whose correction would not have ended the suit. A great many genuinely wrong orders fall into that category, and the remedy for them under the Code disappeared. • Section 115(2). Revision is unavailable where an appeal lies, which excludes the orders in Order XLIII Rule 1 from the section even where the appeal is an inadequate remedy in the particular case. • The Code cannot narrow the Constitution. Article 227 is unaffected by both limits, so petitions that would once have been revisions are now filed under it, and courts entertain them where the case is otherwise fit. |
§ But the constitutional power is not a free appeal It is exercised sparingly. Superintendence is not a licence to correct every error; the grounds recognised are a jurisdictional excess, a flagrant disregard of law or procedure, or a grave failure of justice. It is not a substitute for an appeal. Where a statutory remedy exists and is adequate, the court ordinarily requires the party to use it. It does not reopen the merits. The High Court under Article 227 keeps a forum within its authority; it does not re-decide the case as an appellate court would. And the label does not matter as much as the substance. A petition described as being under Article 227 will be tested by what it actually asks the court to do, and one that seeks a rehearing on the facts will be refused whatever it is called. |
4. Article 227 and Article 226 in Passing
Basis | Article 226 | Article 227 |
|---|---|---|
Nature of the power | Original jurisdiction to issue writs | Supervisory jurisdiction of superintendence |
Against whom | Any person or authority, including the Government | Courts and tribunals within the High Court's territory |
Whether the forum is a party | The tribunal or authority is made a respondent | The court or tribunal is not ordinarily a necessary party |
How the court acts | By issuing a writ, direction or order | By making such order as is necessary to keep the forum within its authority |
Of its own motion | Ordinarily on a petition | Superintendence may be exercised suo motu |
In practice | Petitions are frequently filed under both articles together, and the court proceeds under whichever is appropriate |
5. Landmark Points
- Section 115(1). Three jurisdictional grounds, over courts subordinate to the High Court, in cases decided, where no appeal lies.
- The 1999 proviso. No interlocutory order may be varied unless, had it been made in favour of the applicant, it would have finally disposed of the suit.
- Section 115(2) and (3). No revision where an appeal lies, and a revision does not operate as a stay.
- Article 227(1). Superintendence over all courts and tribunals within the High Court's territory.
- Article 227(4). No superintendence over courts or tribunals constituted under a law relating to the Armed Forces.
- The Code cannot narrow the Constitution, so the 1999 proviso does not apply to Article 227.
- The constitutional power is exercised sparingly, on jurisdictional excess, flagrant disregard of law, or a grave failure of justice, and never as a substitute for an appeal.
6. Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between Section 115 and Article 227?
Section 115 is a statutory revisional power over courts subordinate to the High Court, available only where no appeal lies and confined by the 1999 proviso. Article 227 is a constitutional power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals in the High Court's territory, which no statute can narrow.
Does the 1999 proviso apply to Article 227?
No. The proviso is part of the Code, and the Code cannot cut down a power conferred by the Constitution. That is a large part of why petitions that would once have been revisions are now filed under Article 227.
Can Article 227 be used where an appeal is available?
It is not barred by the availability of an appeal, but the court ordinarily requires a party to use an adequate statutory remedy first. Article 227 is not to be used as a substitute for an appeal.
Over whom does each power operate?
Section 115 operates over courts subordinate to the High Court. Article 227 operates over all courts and tribunals within its territory, with the exception in clause (4) for courts or tribunals constituted under a law relating to the Armed Forces.
On what grounds is Article 227 exercised?
Sparingly, and on grounds resembling those under Section 115: a jurisdictional excess, a flagrant disregard of law or procedure, or a grave failure of justice. It does not reopen the merits or re-decide the case.
Does the label on the petition matter?
Less than the substance. A petition will be tested by what it asks the court to do, and one that seeks a rehearing on the facts will be refused whether it is styled under Section 115, Article 226 or Article 227.
7. Related Topics in This CPC Series
- Revision under Section 115
- Appeal, Review, Revision, Reference and Recall Compared
- Appeals from Orders: Sections 104 to 106 and Order XLIII
- Inherent Jurisdiction and Inherent Powers Distinguished