Order XLVII Rule 9 CPC - Bar of Certain Applications

Order XLVII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prevents repeated applications for review of decisions already made in review proceedings. It is an important safeguard against successive review petitions in civil litigation.

Text of Order XLVII Rule 9 CPC

This is the central rule governing successive review applications under Order XLVII. The text is reproduced from the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. See the official CPC text on India Code.

Meaning and scope of the prohibition

Review means reconsideration by a court of its own judgment, decree or order on the limited grounds recognised by law. A successive review is an attempt to seek another review of an order made in an earlier review proceeding or of the decree or order resulting from that review.

Rule 9 bars an application asking the court to review (i) an order disposing of an application for review, or (ii) a decree or order passed or made on review. The provision promotes finality in litigation and prevents the review process from becoming an indefinite series of challenges.

For example, where a court rejects an application for review, a fresh application seeking review of that rejection is ordinarily barred by Rule 9. Similarly, a party cannot seek another review of a decree made upon review by invoking the same procedural route.

Related CPC provisions

Section 114 CPC - Review

Section 114 authorises an eligible aggrieved person to apply to the court that passed the decree or made the order for review, subject to the conditions of the Code. It does not create a general right to repeated reviews.

Order XLVII Rule 1 - Grounds for review

Rule 1 recognises limited grounds, including discovery of new and important evidence despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason. These grounds concern a permissible review; they do not override the successive-review bar in Rule 9. Read Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

Order XLVII Rule 7 - Appeal and restoration

Rule 7 states that an order rejecting a review application is not appealable under that rule. It also provides a specific mechanism to restore a review application dismissed because the applicant failed to appear, upon proof of sufficient cause and notice to the opposite party. Such restoration should not be confused with a second substantive review. Read Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC.

Order XLVII Rule 8 - Rehearing after review is granted

When review is granted, the court records that fact and may rehear the case immediately or direct how the rehearing will take place. Rule 9 applies to decrees or orders passed or made on review. Read Order XLVII Rule 8 CPC.

Practical implications

• A litigant should set out all legally sustainable review grounds in the first properly filed review application.
• A review cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or as a means to reargue the entire dispute.
• After a review is decided, any other proposed remedy must be assessed independently under the applicable law; Rule 9 itself does not confer an appeal or other remedy.
• Procedural rules, limitation periods, the forum and the nature of the order must be checked before initiating further proceedings.

Important distinction: The bar on a second review does not by itself determine whether an appeal, constitutional remedy or other proceeding is maintainable. Those questions depend on the governing law and facts of the case. The Supreme Court's discussion of review orders in Rahimal Bathu v. Ashiyal Beevi (2023) is relevant to the statutory scheme.

Frequently asked questions

Can a court review its order rejecting an earlier review petition?

Order XLVII Rule 9 ordinarily prohibits an application seeking review of an order made on a review application.

Can a decree passed after review be reviewed again?

Rule 9 expressly bars an application to review a decree or order passed or made on review.

Is restoration of a review application dismissed for non-appearance a second review?

No. Order XLVII Rule 7(2) and (3) specifically address restoration for sufficient cause, subject to notice to the opposite party. Restoration and reconsideration on the merits are different procedures.

Does Rule 9 apply to every court and every type of proceeding?

Its application must be considered in light of the governing procedural law, including any special legislation and rules applicable to the court or tribunal concerned. Supreme Court review proceedings are governed by their own constitutional and procedural framework.

Official legal reference

Read the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (India Code) for the full statutory context, including Section 114 and Order XLVII.

Legal information only. Court rules, local amendments and subsequent legal developments may affect individual cases.