Civil Procedure Code, 1908 | Order 47

Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC - Rejection of Review, Appeal and Restoration

Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) deals with the consequences of rejecting an application for review, the right to challenge an order granting review, and restoration of a review application dismissed for non-appearance.

Key rule: An order rejecting a review application is not appealable under this rule. An order granting review can be challenged in the manner prescribed by Rule 7(1). A review application dismissed because the applicant did not appear may be restored on proof of sufficient cause, after notice to the opposite party.

Text of Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC

Rule 7 - Order of rejection not appealable. Objections to order granting application

(1) An order of the Court rejecting the application shall not be appealable; but an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit.

(2) Where the application has been rejected in consequence of the failure of the applicant to appear, he may apply for an order to have the rejected application restored to the file, and, where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when such application was called on for hearing, the Court shall order it to be restored to the file upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for hearing the same.

(3) No order shall be made under sub-rule (2) unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party.

1. Rejection of review application is not appealable

Under Order XLVII Rule 7(1), the rejection of a review application does not itself give rise to an appeal against the rejection order. Review is a limited remedy for reconsideration of a judgment or order on legally recognised grounds; it is not a second hearing on the merits merely because a party disagrees with the decision.

This rule must be read with Order XLVII Rule 1, which sets out the grounds on which review may be sought. Whether any separate remedy is available against the original decree or order depends on the applicable law, limitation and procedural circumstances.

2. How an order granting review may be challenged

Rule 7(1) draws a distinction between refusal and grant of review. An order granting a review application may be objected to either immediately through an appeal from that order, where maintainable, or in an appeal against the decree or order finally passed in the suit.

Order XLIII Rule 1(w) CPC provides for an appeal from an order under Order XLVII Rule 4 granting an application for review, subject to the conditions stated in that provision. Read the relevant provisions together rather than treating every procedural order as independently appealable.

3. Restoration after dismissal for non-appearance

Order XLVII Rule 7(2) applies when a review application was rejected because the applicant failed to appear at the hearing. The applicant may ask the same court to restore the review application to its file.

The application must identify the review proceeding and the date on which it was dismissed for non-appearance.
The applicant must explain the absence and establish a sufficient cause that prevented attendance when the matter was called for hearing.
If satisfied, the court shall restore the review application, subject to such terms concerning costs or otherwise as it considers appropriate, and fix a date for hearing.

Restoration under this provision is different from obtaining review on the merits. Restoring the application permits its hearing; it does not automatically set aside the original decree or order.

4. Notice to the opposite party is mandatory

Order XLVII Rule 7(3) prohibits an order restoring the dismissed review application under sub-rule (2) unless notice of the restoration application has been served on the opposite party. The requirement gives the opposing party an opportunity to contest the explanation for non-appearance and any proposed terms of restoration.

Section 114 CPC: provides the statutory basis for review, subject to the prescribed conditions.
Order XLVII Rule 1: specifies who may seek review and the recognised grounds, including discovery of important evidence despite due diligence and an error apparent on the face of the record.
Order XLVII Rule 4: governs rejection or grant of review, including notice and strict proof requirements in specified cases.
Order XLIII Rule 1(w): concerns appeals from specified orders granting review.
Article 124 of the Limitation Act, 1963: generally prescribes 30 days for an application for review of judgment by a court other than the Supreme Court, counted from the date of the decree or order. Different rules may apply to Supreme Court proceedings and to particular procedural applications.

Limitation and the appropriate remedy must be assessed in light of the relevant court rules, any applicable amendments, and the specific procedural history.

6. Practical illustration

Suppose a civil court dismisses a review application because the applicant does not appear on the listed date. If the applicant subsequently establishes sufficient cause for the absence, the court may restore the application under Rule 7(2), after service of notice on the opposite party as required by Rule 7(3). The court then hears the review application according to the applicable law.

Official statutory references

For the current statutory text and any amendments, consult the India Code official legislation portal for the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Limitation Act, 1963. For judicial decisions, see the Supreme Court of India website.

This article is general legal information, not advice on a particular case. Court-specific rules and amendments should be checked before filing.