Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Order 47
Order XLVII Rule 6 CPC - Equal Division and Majority in Review Applications
Order XLVII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governs how an application for review is decided when it is heard by more than one judge. It sets out the consequence of an equal division and the effect of a majority opinion.
Text of Order XLVII Rule 6 CPC
(1) Where the application for a review is heard by more than one Judge and the Court is equally divided, the application shall be rejected.
(2) Where there is a majority, the decision shall be according to the opinion of the majority.
Meaning and legal effect
Sub-rule (1): Equal division. If the judges hearing a review application are equally divided, the application must be rejected. For example, if a two-judge bench is divided one-to-one on whether review should be allowed, the review application fails under this rule.
Sub-rule (2): Majority decision. If more judges support one outcome than another, the majority view determines the decision. For example, on a three-judge bench, a two-to-one decision governs the review application.
How Rule 6 fits within the review procedure
A review is a limited statutory remedy, not a routine second hearing of the entire case. Order XLVII Rule 1 addresses grounds for seeking review, including discovery of important new evidence despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. Rule 4 deals with rejection or grant of review applications, while Rule 5 addresses which judges should hear review applications in a court consisting of two or more judges.
Rule 6 specifically resolves a split of judicial opinion when more than one judge hears the review application. It does not independently create new grounds for review or change the applicable filing deadline.
Practical implications
- Equal split: The application is rejected under Rule 6(1), even though some judges favor review.
- Clear majority: The majority view controls under Rule 6(2).
- Review grounds: Applicants must still satisfy the applicable substantive and procedural requirements of Section 114 and Order XLVII of the CPC.
- Further remedies: The availability of any challenge to the resulting order depends on the relevant procedural provisions, including Order XLVII Rule 7, and the circumstances of the case.
Limitation and related provisions
Section 114 CPC provides the statutory basis for review in specified cases, subject to the rules. Article 124 of the Limitation Act, 1963 generally prescribes 30 days for an application to review a judgment by a court other than the Supreme Court, calculated from the date of the decree or order. Questions of exclusion, condonation, and applicable special rules require case-specific examination.
For the statutory texts, consult the official India Code repository for the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Limitation Act, 1963. Court-specific rules and binding judgments should also be checked before filing.
Frequently asked questions
What happens when two judges disagree on a review application?
When the two judges are equally divided, the application is rejected under Order XLVII Rule 6(1).
What happens if three judges hear the application?
If two judges agree and one dissents, the majority opinion determines the result under Rule 6(2).
Does Rule 6 permit a fresh appeal on the merits?
No. Rule 6 concerns the decision-making rule for a multi-judge review bench. The scope and grounds of review are governed by other provisions, especially Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.