Review petition by aggrieved 3rd party

What are the facts? What is the context? Why the unusual course of third party seeking review?

Third party ( not party to the suit ) can not file review Petition and such review petition is not maintainable.Third party if aggrieved by judgment can with the permission of court file appeal.

Hello, greetings of the day.
As your query is divided part by part, I am answering it in the same order.
In Union of India vs Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and Ors, 2011, The Supreme Court held that, they have no objection to allow an aggrieved third party to take recourse to the remedy of review petition. But the quintessence is that the person must be aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by this Court in some respect. Under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure which, inter alia, postulates that “any person considering himself aggrieved” would have locus to file a review petition. Order XLVII of CPC again restates the position that any person considering himself aggrieved can file a review petition. So yes, any third party can also file a review petition. 
As per your second question, the Supreme Court of India, under Article 137 of the Constitution which provides that subject to provisions of any law and rule made under Article 145 the Supreme Court of India has the power to review any judgement pronounced or order made by it. Generally review petitions are also heard by the same combination of judges, as far as possible, who delivered the order or judgement which is sought after to be reviewed. But in the meanwhile if any judge has retired or is unavailable temporarily, then a replacement is made keeping in mind the seniority of the judges.
As per your last query, you must file the review petition within thirty days. But before that you need to submit an application to file a review petition at the court of law.  
Hope this helps.
Regards
Nirali Nayak
Law Student

Originally posted by : indianlawlearner
	1) What is the procedure to file a review petition as aggrieved 3rd party ( not party to suit).  2) is there a possibility of another judge reviewing the review petition or should the review petition be filed before the same court which gave order? 3) do we have to file an application for permission to file the review petition first or can we file the review petition directly? (

Mr. / Ms. Indianlawlearner,

I agree and appreciate analyses, opinion and advise of experts, especially Ms. Nirali Nayak.

Review of a judgment / order differs in civil and criminal case which are governed by different procedure viz; Article 137 of the Constitution of India, Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, in criminal jurisprudence the magistrate has no such power to review his order/ judgment, which can be revised by superior court.

Same bench (if available) has the power to review order/ judgment.  

Third party has no locus standi to move  a review petition.

Seek guidance of your professor / guide / tutor as this platform is meant to help needy litigants and not for providing any coaching.

Review means to reconsider, to look again or to re examine. In legal sense, it is a judicial re-examination of the case by the same court and by the same Judge.

In India, a binding decision of the Supreme Court/High Court can be reviewed in Review Petition. The parties aggrieved on any order of the Supreme Court on any apparent error can file a review petition.

According to the general principle of law, once the judgment is passed the court becomes functus officio. A power of review should not be confused with the appellate powers which enables an appellate court to enable all errors committed by the subordinate Court. 

A review petition is also maintainable in cases where appeal is provided but no such appeal is preferred by the aggrieved party. An application for review can be presented so long as no appeal is preferred against the order. However when appeal is already pending in the Court, no review petition can be entertained.

A right of review is both substantive as well as procedural. As a substantive right, it has to be conferred by law, either expressly or by necessary implications. There can be no inherent right of review. As a procedural provision, every Court or tribunal can correct an inadvertent error which has crept in the order due to procedural defect or mathematical or clerical error or by misrepresentation or fraud of a party to the proceeding, which can be corrected as*x debito justitae. If a review is not maintainable I, it cannot be allowed by describing such application as an ‘’clarification’’ or ‘’modification’’

Where no right of appeal is allowed to an aggrieved party, he can file a review application. When an appeal is dismissed on the ground that it was incompetent or was time –barred, the provisions of review would get attracted.

Thank you so much for explaining in detail..