Appeal VS Review: What is the Suitable Legal Recourse?

Introduction

The Indian Legal System provides for a robust mechanism for challenging a Judgement, Decree or Order as passed by Judicial/Quasi-Judicial bodies for reconsideration on questions of fact as well as law. The law is conscious of errors in judgment and interpretation of facts and law and adequately safeguards the interests of litigants by providing statutory remedies of appeal, review and revision which permits the competent court to assess the legality of the Judgement, Decree or Order as passed by the previous Court.

While proceedings under review as well as appeal entail a re-evaluation of the decision passed in a matter, broadly understood, an appeal is a challenge to a Judgement, Decree or Order which essentially seeks to overturn the decision passed by a Court of Law. Whereas a review is heard and considered by the same court which had passed the order in question and is largely limited to procedural fairness and errors apparent on record such as clerical/arithmetical errors, etc.

Ordinarily, an appeal is preferred in cases where a thorough re-appreciation of the position of law or fact is necessitated by a party aggrieved by the Judgement, Decree or Order passed by a competent Court before a higher forum.

Whereas a review may be a more suitable remedy when there is an error apparent on the face of record which requires reconsideration and rectification before the same Court which has passed such order.

Difference Between an Appeal and Review

Forum of adjudication

Both review as well as an appeal are statutory rights to challenge an order, meaning thereby that there is no inherent right to seek a review or appeal against an order and both remedies are explicitly governed as per the enabling provisions of the applicable law, as the case may be.

The power to review a decision, vests with the same court which has passed the order under challenge, and in essence the same court sits in appeal over its own decision. The right to appeal, however, lies before a forum of higher authority in judicial hierarchy, as governed and provided under the applicable law as the case may be.

Scope of consideration

While in case of an appeal, a court of law may consider re-appreciation of both facts as well as substantive legal issues of the matter at hand, however, under review jurisdiction the courts ordinarily refrain themselves from providing a re-hearing and re-appreciation of the factual and legal position and largely restrict themselves to any grave and apparent error such as arithmetical or clerical error thereby leading to judicial oversight. An appeal is essentially in the nature of re-evaluation of the veracity of Judgement, Decree or Order whereas the proceedings under a Review Petition are summary in nature and do not permit the re-hearing of the entire case on merits.

An appeal is filed on behalf of a party who is aggrieved by the decision of the Court below, whereas a review may be preferred at the behest of either of the parties, who may not necessarily be aggrieved by the decision in entirely but may seek to move the court for some error or omission and rectification.

Review Not an Alternate to Appeal

While the difference between both jurisdictions under review and appeal is overlapping in some cases and continues to remain a legal dilemma often faced by the legal fraternity, the fact remains that a clear distinction of both remedies is a difficult line to draw.

The decision of availing either of the remedies must be tested on the gravity of the error which is sought to be challenged in each case.

It must be borne in mind that review jurisdiction is limited in its scope and would not amount to a re-consideration of issues already adjudicated upon by the Court. It must only be exercised in cases where the Court may have overlooked an error or incorrectly appreciated facts which amounts to an error apparent on the face of record.

A review may also be preferred if new facts or evidence have emerged in a case and the Court did not have the benefit of deliberating upon the same.

A Comprehensive Re-Analysis of a Decision Only Permissible in Appeal

Cases where a party is seeking to challenge the very basis and subsequent adjudication of an issue by a Court of law can only be adjudicated upon by a higher Court in appellate jurisdiction wherein the veracity and correctness of the decision given by the lower court is adjudged. The higher Forum applies its mind afresh upon the facts of the case and re-appreciates the legal as well as factual aspects and merits of the case at hand.

However, such indulgence is not permissible under review jurisdiction where the Court only considers the correctness of any fallacies that may have been pointed out by a party and does not delve into the entire facts of the case at hand. An error on the face of record ought to be apparent and is one which does not require any long-drawn process of reasoning where there may be two conceivable conclusions.

Conclusion

While devising the appropriate legal remedy for challenging an order, and whether to prefer a review petition before the same court or an appeal before a higher forum, what must be determined is the degree and extent to which the party is aggrieved from the order under challenge.

If there is a question which involves the interpretation of the factual matrix of the case or the legal principles involved therein, an appeal ought to be preferred since the same would amount to re-consideration of the entire case at hand which have already been heard and determined by the Court.

However, if the judgment or order under is only sought to be challenged on account of an error apparent on the fact of record and does not amount to a re-hearing of the entire issues heard and determined by the Court, the appropriate remedy is to prefer a review petition before the same Court.