Not every unfavourable judgment can be sent to a higher court. Sometimes the mistake sits inside the judgment itself - a figure misread, a binding law overlooked, a document ignored - or a vital piece of evidence turns up only after the ruling. For situations like these Pakistani law offers a rarely understood remedy: the review petition, where you go back to the very court that decided the matter and ask it to correct itself. It is powerful but tightly fenced. Used correctly it saves the cost and delay of an appeal; used as a second bite at the cherry it is dismissed. This guide explains exactly how it works.
What a review petition actually is
A review is a request to the same court, and as far as possible the same judge, to reconsider a decree or final order it has already passed. The idea is simple: no court is infallible, and where a judgment carries a plain error on its face, it is quicker and fairer to let that court fix its own slip than to force the parties into a full appeal. The catch is that the door is deliberately narrow. Review jurisdiction exists to correct clear errors, not to re-hear a case the court has already thought through and decided.
The legal basis for review
The remedy sits in different statutes depending on which court decided your matter:
| Forum | Governing law | Time limit |
|---|---|---|
| Civil / district courts | Section 114 & Order 47, CPC 1908 | 90 days from the decree or order |
| High Court (civil side) | Order 47, CPC 1908 (read with High Court Rules) | 90 days (per Limitation Act 1908) |
| Supreme Court of Pakistan | Article 188, Constitution & Supreme Court Rules | 30 days from the judgment |
| Criminal courts | Barred by Section 369, CrPC 1898 | Not available (save clerical correction) |
Article 188 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court its own power to review its judgments, regulated by the Supreme Court Rules. A review before the apex court must be moved within 30 days and, in practice, is accompanied by a certificate of counsel confirming there are reasonable grounds for it.
The three grounds for review
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC allows review on three grounds, and only three:
| Ground | What it means |
|---|---|
| New evidence | Discovery of new and important matter or evidence that, despite due diligence, was not within your knowledge or could not be produced when the order was made. |
| Error apparent on the record | A mistake or error that is self-evident from the record - obvious at a glance, without any long process of reasoning or re-appraisal of evidence. |
| Any other sufficient reason | A reason of a nature analogous to the first two grounds - courts read this narrowly, not as an open door. |
The middle ground does most of the work, and it is the most misunderstood. An "error apparent on the face of the record" is one you can point to without argument - a binding statute or precedent ignored, a clear arithmetical mistake, or a decree that contradicts an admitted fact. If detecting the error needs a chain of reasoning or a fresh look at the evidence, it is not "apparent", and review will fail.
Error apparent vs an appeal in disguise
This is where most review petitions collapse. There is a clear line between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the record. A decision you simply disagree with, or think the judge got wrong on the merits, is corrected by a higher forum on appeal - not by review. Review only reaches errors that leap off the page. Pakistani and subcontinental courts have repeated the rule for decades: a review cannot be an appeal in disguise, and the reviewing court will not re-hear and re-decide a matter merely because a different conclusion was possible.
Reality check: If your real complaint is that the judge weighed the evidence wrongly or reached the wrong legal conclusion after proper reasoning, your remedy is almost certainly a civil appeal or a revision petition - not a review.
Limitation - do not miss the deadline
Timing is decisive. Under the Limitation Act 1908, a review of a judgment or order in the civil courts must generally be filed within 90 days of the decree or order. Before the Supreme Court, the window is much tighter at 30 days. Miss the deadline and the petition is time-barred - the court will not even reach the merits.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act can, in principle, allow the court to condone a delay where you show sufficient cause for not filing in time, but this is discretionary and treated strictly for reviews. The safe course is to move well inside the limitation period, counting from the date of the order (or, where relevant, from when you obtained the certified copy). For the deadlines that govern every civil step, see our guide to limitation periods in Pakistan.
How to file a review petition
The mechanics are straightforward once the grounds are sound:
- Draft the petition stating precisely which ground you rely on and pointing to the exact error or new evidence.
- Attach a certified copy of the judgment or decree under review - obtain it through the certified copy (naqal) procedure.
- Pay the court fee under the Court Fees Act 1870. The amount varies by forum and the nature of the order, so confirm the current figure with the court or your counsel; you can estimate a civil filing fee with our court fee calculator.
- File within limitation and serve the opposing party.
- Same judge hears it - as far as practicable, the judge who passed the original order decides the review, because that judge is best placed to see whether an obvious error crept in.
If the review succeeds, the court may re-hear the matter and vary or set aside its earlier order. If it is dismissed, the original judgment stands and you are back to considering an appeal - if one still lies and is within time.
Review vs appeal vs revision
These three remedies are constantly confused. The quick comparison:
| Review | Appeal | Revision | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which court | Same court | Higher court | High Court over subordinate court |
| What it corrects | Error apparent / new evidence | Any error of fact or law | Jurisdictional error / illegality |
| Governing law | Order 47 CPC / Art. 188 | Section 96 & 100 CPC | Section 115 CPC |
| Scope | Very narrow | Broad, full re-hearing | Narrow, supervisory |
| Typical deadline | 90 days (30 in SC) | 30-90 days | 90 days |
Review in criminal cases
In criminal matters the position is very different. Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bars a criminal court from altering or reviewing its own judgment once it has been signed, except to correct a clerical error. In broad terms review is not admissible in criminal proceedings, and the correct remedies are appeal or revision. The High Court retains a limited power to reconsider certain orders that fall outside the definition of a "judgment" under Section 369 - for example, interlocutory or without-jurisdiction orders - but this is a narrow exception, not a general right to review a conviction or acquittal.
Frequently asked questions
Can I file a review just because I disagree with the judgment?
No. Disagreement with a reasoned decision is a ground for appeal, not review. Review only corrects an error that is apparent on the face of the record or admits genuinely new evidence.
What counts as an error apparent on the face of the record?
A mistake obvious at a glance - a binding law or precedent overlooked, a clear arithmetical slip, or a finding that contradicts an admitted fact. If it needs a long chain of reasoning to spot, it does not qualify.
How long do I have to file a review petition?
Generally 90 days from the decree or order in civil courts under the Limitation Act 1908, and 30 days before the Supreme Court under its Rules.
Does filing a review stop the original order from taking effect?
Not automatically. You must apply separately for a stay; the review itself does not suspend the decree unless the court so orders.
Can I appeal after a review is dismissed?
Only if an appeal still lies and the limitation period has not run out. It is usually safer to decide between review and appeal early, with legal advice, rather than sequentially.
Can the Supreme Court review its own judgment?
Yes, under Article 188 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules, within 30 days and on limited grounds - not as a routine re-hearing of the appeal.