It is well established in Civil suit (CPC) that although one may prefer 'review' (O47 sec 114) of an interim order instead of 'revision' (sec 115) of the order as appeal is not allowed.
And also it is known that review is very rare phenomenon.
Where in the code, does it specify explicitly that 'One can't avail both the remedies of revision if review fails? after review doesn't manage to convince the Hon Court?
Anyways review and revision is not comparable and scope and grounds which are allowed to be alleged are totally in different planets.
Review prefers to showcase the verdict in the light and focus of error which impacted the decision.
Revision focuses the verdict in the light of the erroneousness of the decision based on the facts of the case.
Although End objective althoug is the same for applicant, Review doesn't have any character of 'appeal at higher forum'.
Hence, if review is preferred (but doesn't succeed ) then why CPC doesn't allow the revision ? (which is the only redressal for interim orders as appeal is not allowed ) the same 'Order impugned in review'.
Applicant going for review hasn't yet given-up his right to appeal focussing on the erroneousness of the decision. (and explicitly mentioned so in review that he hasn't forgone his right to do so)
Where in the code CPC, the Review-Applicant is precluded to exercise his right to challenge the verdict based on erroenousness of the decision i.e. appeal or revision?
Thanks in advance
