Can A Judge Review His Own Order

The original writ petitioner who was the landowner, moved to the court of records seeking direction to the original respondents to collect the land tax and the learned single Judge passed an order in favour of the original writ petitioner. When the original respondents did not comply with the order, civil contempt proceedings were initiated. When the contempt case was pending, the original respondents filed a review petition before the Honourable Court claiming that the original petitioners have suppressed material facts.

The same was seen true by the learned single judge and allowed the review petition by passing an order. Article 137 of the Constitution 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 by it. Under Supreme Court Rules, 1966 such a petition needs to be filed within 30 days from the date of judgement or order.

It is also recommended that the petition should be circulated without oral arguments to the same bench of judges that delivered the judgement sought to be reviewed. Review petition can also be filed against the order passed by the High Court in the revision petition. The High Court may admit / dismiss the review petition, but also has the power to reverse its earlier order after giving opportunity of hearing to the both sides. Unhappy with the trial court's decision, Mr. Lyon appeals it to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, one of thirteen federal appellate courts that review appeals from federal district courts. Binding precedent - A prior decision by a court that must be followed without a compelling reason or significantly different facts or issues.

Courts are often bound by the decisions of appellate courts with authority to review their decisions. For example, district courts are bound by the decisions of the court of appeals that can review their cases, and all courts – both state and federal – are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The term "mistake or error apparent" by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules andSection 80of the Act. To put it differently an order, decision, or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law.

In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision. The procedure described above is the normal procedure. However, the course of the proceedings may be modified by incidental proceedings. The most common incidental proceedings are preliminary objections, which are raised to challenge the competence of the Court to decide on the merits of the case . The matter is one for the Court itself to decide. Then there are provisional measures, interim measures which can be requested by the applicant State if it considers that the rights that form the subject of its application are in immediate danger.

A third possibility is that a State may request permission to intervene in a dispute involving other States if it considers that it has an interest of a legal naturein the case, which might be affected by the decision made. The Statute also makes provision for instances when a respondent State fails to appear before the Court, either because it totally rejects the Court's jurisdiction or for any other reason. Failure by one party to appear does not prevent the proceedings from taking their course, although the Court must first satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction. Finally, should the Court find that parties to separate proceedings are submitting the same arguments and submissions against a common opponent in relation to the same issue, it may order the proceedings to be joined.

A litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals, or in the highest court of a state, may file a petition for a "writ of certiorari," which is a document asking the Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court, however, does not have to grant review. The Court typically will agree to hear a case only when it involves an unusually important legal principle, or when two or more federal appellate courts have interpreted a law differently.

There are also a small number of special circumstances in which the Supreme Court is required by law to hear an appeal. Although some cases are decided based on written briefs alone, many cases are selected for an "oral argument" before the court. Oral argument in the court of appeals is a structured discussion between the appellate lawyers and the panel of judges focusing on the legal principles in dispute. Each side is given a short time — usually about 15 minutes — to present arguments to the court.

Can Family Court Review Its Own Order Review Petition in respect of tax litigation is dealt with under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC. Any party aggrieved by an order or judgment may apply for reviewing the said order or judgment to the same court. It can be filed where no appeal is preferred or in case there is no provision for appeal. As per Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC every Court has been conferred power to review its own decision if its decision is vitiated by a mistake or error apparent on face of record. But error on the face of record must be such error which must be evident per se from record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position.

The grounds of reference and review are different. Reference is made by the court trying the suit, appeal or executing the decree when it entertains reasonable doubt with regard to any question of law or usage having the force of law. The grounds of review may be the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, some apparent mistake or error on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason. A review petition is being preferred only on limited grounds, such as an error apparent on the face of the record. Generally, review petition are hear by the same judges who had earlier decided the case. The judges may be called for records relating to the said matter during re-hearing of the case for re-examination if any mistake happened in the Order so pronounced by the court.

Thus, a chance of success in a review petition is very limited. A review application or petition may be filed by the affected party within 30 days of the Order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court. The decisions of both Supreme Court and High Courts can be reviewed in Review Petition. Article 137 of the Constitution 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 judgment pronounced by it. A court can review a judgment for any other sufficient reason.

The appellate court cannot change the trial court's decision just because the appellate court judges (called "justices") disagree with it. The trial court is entitled to hear the evidence and come to its own decision. The appellate court can only reverse the trial court's decision if it finds a legal mistake in the trial court proceedings that was so important that it changed at least part of the outcome of the case. Because of this heavy burden on the appellant to prove this type of mistake, it is quite difficult to win an appeal. The court of appeals decision usually will be the final word in the case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S.

In some cases the decision may be reviewed en banc, that is, by a larger group of judges of the court of appeals for the circuit. In order to obtain a review an applicant has to show to the satisfaction of the court that there has been discovery of new and important matter or evidence which was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time when the order to be reviewed was made. An applicant may have to show that there was a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. The applicant argues that the judgment sanctions illegalities by the Respondent.

The applicant also states that the court failed to judiciously exercise it discretion in determining the application. The foregoing reasons are attacks on the judgment and grounds of appeal. They cannot and do not qualify to be grounds for review. It is a clear invitation to this court to exercise appellate jurisdiction on its own judgment.

Differently put, this, according to the applicant's counsel constitutes an apparent error on the face of record and therefore a ground for review. From the day the 2nd Circuit denies his petition for rehearing en banc, Mr. Lyon has ninety days to file a petition for a writ of certiorari (often called acert. petition), which is a brief asking the Supreme Court to hear his case. (If Mr. Lyon had won in the lower courts, the zoo could have filed a cert. petition.) In most circumstances, the Supreme Court has discretion whether or not to grant review of a particular case. Petitions filed each Term, the court grants cert.

In India, a binding decision of the Supreme Court or High Court can be reviewed in Review Petition. The parties aggrieved on any order of the Supreme Court or High Court on any apparent error can file a review petition. Taking into consideration the principle of stare decisis, courts generally do not unsettle a decision, without a strong case. This provision regarding review is an exception to the legal principle of stare decisis.

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. The Code of Criminal Procedure does contain a provision for...-Divisional Magistrate became functus officio and had no power to review or recall that order on any ground whatsoever. In these circumstances, therefore, the order even if there be one, recalling...not show any interest in the inquiry ordered by the court. On December 7, 1968 the respondent appeared before the Magistrate and filed an application for recalling his order. I am not persuaded that the reasons offered by the applicant amounts to 'sufficient reason' within the meaning of the rules cited above nor is it analogous or ejusdem generis to the other reasons stipulated in Order 45 Rule 1.

My finding is fortified by the holding in the case of Evan Bwire vs Andrew Ngindawhere the court held that 'an application for review will only be allowed on very strong grounds particularly if its effect will amount to re-opening the application or case a fresh. The Supreme Court is classified at the top of the judicial organization to receive a complaint against the court that issued the impugned decision and is not a party to separate litigation. Once the court has accepted the case, the parties are required to file a new set of briefs. Stage briefs, which focused on whether the court should review the case, the briefs on the merits allow each party to explain why he or she should win the case. Is granted, the petitioner generally has 45 days to file his opening brief.

Mr. Lyon is suing his employer, the Animal House Zoo, because he believes that the zoo violated his rights under the Civil Rights Act and the U.S. He begins his lawsuit by filing it in the federal district court, the trial court responsible for considering federal cases in the area where he lives and works. After hearing arguments and receiving evidence from both Mr. Lyon and the zoo, the district court decides that the zoo did not violate Mr. Lyon's rights.

A litigant who is not satisfied with a decision made by a federal administrative agency usually may file a petition for review of the agency decision by a court of appeals. Judicial review in cases involving certain federal agencies or programs — for example, disputes over Social Security benefits — may be obtained first in a district court rather than a court of appeals. An appeal of a ruling by a bankruptcy judge may be taken to the district court.

Several courts of appeals, however, have established a bankruptcy appellate panel consisting of three bankruptcy judges to hear appeals directly from the bankruptcy courts. In either situation, the party that loses in the initial bankruptcy appeal may then appeal to the court of appeals. The term 'Review' means re-examine or verification. In a legal sense filing of application before the Hon'ble court to re-examine the material of facts and verification of records relating to pronounced judgment is called as review petition. It is legally given another chance to the aggrieved parties to file review petition before the court to rectify order on an error apparent on the face of the record. On 4 October 2012, based on a review petition filed by a person named Kamlesh Verma, the Supreme Court decided to review its earlier verdict in open court in a Disproportionate assets case against Mayawati.

The case dates back to 2003 when CBI filed a case against Mayawati for owning assets disproportionate to her known sources of income. Mayawati described the CBI investigation against her as illegal. The assets case was finally quashed on 6 July 2012—nine years later—by the Supreme Court; the court found that the case was unwarranted.

The Code of Criminal Procedure does contain a provision for... The High Court accepted the petitions for review and recalled its previous judgment imposing substantive sentence...own judgment, and as such, the order of the High Court passed in review will have to be set aside as being without jurisdiction. On behalf of the respondent, Mr D.J Patel, submitted that, so far as...final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The words "or in the case of a High Court, by the... The grounds of appeal and revision are different. An application in revision can lie only on the ground of jurisdiction, and the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is not a court of appeal on a question of law or fact.

In an appeal the court has the power to decide both questions of fact and law. These words have been interpreted by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee to mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in and . It might be added that a review application should be filled before the appeal is lodged. An appeal may be filed after an application for review, but once the appeal is heard, the review cannot proceed. On the other hand, if the application for review is granted and a new decree is passed, the appeal cannot be heard and it must be dismissed for the decree appealed from is superseded by a new decree. Review is impermissible without a glaring omission, evident mistake or similar ominous error.

The power ofreviewis available only when there is anerrorapparent on thefaceof therecord.I emphasize that reviewproceedings are not an appeal. Thereviewmust be confined toerrorapparent on thefaceof therecordand re-appraisal of the entire evidence or how the judge applied or interpreted the law would amount to exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction, which is not permissible. There are cases, however, where leave is not required. In criminal cases, there is an automatic right of appeal where an acquittal has been set aside in the provincial court of appeal or where one judge in the provincial court of appeal dissents on a question of law. In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada has a special kind of "Reference" jurisdiction, original in character, given by s.

The Governor in Council may refer to the Court, for its opinion, constitutional or other questions. A number of the constitutions drafted in Europe and Asia after World War II incorporated judicial review in various forms. Such "administrative review" assesses the allegedly questionable actions of administrators against standards of reasonableness and abuse of discretion.

Magistrate judges - Judicial officers who assist U.S. district court judges in getting cases ready for trial. They may decide some criminal and civil trials when both parties agree to have the case heard by a magistrate judge instead of a district court judge. Grand jury - A body of citizens who listen to evidence of criminal allegations, which are presented by the government, and determines whether there is probable cause to believe the offense was committed.

As it is used in federal criminal cases, "the government" refers to the lawyers of the U.S. Grand jury proceedings are closed to the public, and the person suspected of having committed the crime is not entitled to be present or have an attorney present. States are not required to use grand juries, but the federal government must do so under the Constitution. TALK TO A LAWYER. You have the right to appeal a case without a lawyer. But appeals are very complicated and take a lot of time, effort, and money. You have to do all the paperwork correctly, meet the deadlines, and follow all the court's rules and procedures.

If you make mistakes, your case may be dismissed and you may have to pay the appeal costs of the other side. A lawyer with experience in appeals can help you make sure you complete every step correctly and on time. Also, a lawyer can help you decide if you can or should file an appeal at all. A lawyer may know how to get what you want faster and cheaper by using a different legal process. Many lawyers do not do appeals, so make sure you talk to a lawyer who specializes in appeals.

The appellate court only reviews what happened in the trial court to decide if a legal mistake was made in the original trial; for example, to see if the trial court judge applied the wrong law to the facts of the case. If the Justices decide to accept a case , the case is placed on the docket. According to the Supreme Court's rules, the petitioner has a certain amount of time to write a brief, not to exceed 50 pages, putting forth his/her legal case concerning the issue on which the Court granted review. After the petitioner's brief has been filed, the other party, known as the respondent, is given a certain amount of time to file a respondent's brief. Appeals are decided by panels of three judges working together.