1. Revision and Review of Judgment:
1. The power of revision is exercised by the court superior to the court which decided the case but the power of review is exercised by the very court which passed the decree or order.
2. The power of revision is conferred on the High Court only, which is not so in the case of review. Any court can review its judgment.
3. Revisional powers by the High Court can be exercised only in a case when there is no appeal to the High Court, but review can be made even when appeal lies to the High Court therein.
4. The grounds on which the powers of revision and review can be exercised are different. The ground for revision relates to jurisdiction, viz., want of jurisdiction, failure to exercise a jurisdiction, or illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction, while the ground of review may be
(a) The discovery of new and important matter or evidence,
(b) Some apparent mistake or error on the face of the record, or (c) any other sufficient reason.
5. In revision the High Court can, of its own accord, send for the case, but for review an application has to be made by the aggrieved party.
6. No appeal lies from an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, but the order granting review is appealable.
2. Appeal and Reference:
1. A right of appeal is a right conferred on the suitor, while the power of reference is vested in the court.
2. Reference is always made to the High Court, while an appeal is preferred to a superior court which need not necessarily be High Court.
3. The grounds of appeal are wider than the grounds of reference.
4. Reference is made in a pending suit, appeal or execution proceeding in order to enable the court to arrive at a correct conclusion, while an appeal is preferred after the decree is passed or an appealable order is made.
3. Appeal and Revision:
1. An appeal lies to a superior court, which may not necessarily be a High Court; but an application for revision lies only the High Court.
2. An appeal lies only from appealable orders and decree, but an application for revision can be made only when the relief by way of appeal to the High Court is not available.
3. A right of appeal is a substantive right given by statute. There is no right of revision. It is only a privilege. A party may move the High Court to invoke its revisional jurisdiction or the High Court may of its own motion exercise revisional jurisdiction, but the power is discretionary.
4. An appeal abates if the legal representatives of a deceased party are not brought on the record within the time allowed by law. A revision does not abate in case of the death of a party even if the legal representatives are not brought on the record. The High Court has a right to bring the proper parties before the Court at any time.
5. 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.
6. Section 115 does not require that there should be an application in revision. The High Court can move of its own accord in exercising revisional jurisdiction. In case of appeal there must be a memorandum of appeal filed before the same can be considered by the appellate court.
7. An essential distinction between an appeal and a revision is based on differences implicit in the said two expressions. An appeal is continuation of the proceedings. In effect, the entire proceedings are before the appellate authority and it has power to review the evidence subject to the statutory limitations prescribed. But in the case of a revision, whatever powers the revisional authority may or may not have; it has not the power to review the evidence unless the statute expressly confers on it that power. (State of Kerala v. K.M. Charia Abdidla & Co., A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1585).
4. Second Appeal and Revision:
1. A second appeal lies to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by a subordinate court only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The grounds of revision are, however, different. They relate to jurisdiction.
2. The revisional powers of the High Court can be invoked in cases which no appeal or second appeal lies to the High Court. This is not so in second appeal.
3. The Court will not in its revisional jurisdiction enter into merits of the case however erroneous the decision of the lower court is on an issue of law or of fact but will interfere only to see that requirements of law have been properly obeyed by the court whose order is the subject of revision.
Although no second appeal can be preferred on a question of fact yet when such an appeal is already before the High Court, it may determine issues of fact where such issues have not been determined provided that the evidence on the record is sufficient for such determination.
4. In revisional matters the High Court may decline to interfere if it is satisfied that substantial Justice has been done. But on questions of law in second appeal, no discretion vests in the High Court and it has no right to decide merely on equitable grounds.
5. Reference and Revision:
1. In reference the case is referred to the High Court by a court subordinate to it. On the other hand, the party aggrieved moves the High Court in revision for the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, or the High Court may sua motu send for the case and examine the record.
2. The ground for reference is the entertainment of some reasonable doubt by the Court trying the suit, appeal or executing the decree with regard to a question of law or usage having the force of law. The ground for revision, on the other hand, relates to jurisdiction, viz., want of jurisdiction, failure to exercise a jurisdiction or illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction.
6. Reference and Review:
1. In reference the subordinate court refers the case to the High Court while in review an application is made by the aggrieved party.
2. The High Court alone can decide matters on reference while an application for review is made to the court which passed the decree or made the order.
3. Reference is made during the pendency of the suit, appeal or execution proceedings, while application for review is made to the court after it has passed the decree or made the order.
4. 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.
7. Review and Appeal:
1. An application for review lies to the same court while an appeal lies to a higher court.
2. The main object of granting a review of judgment is reconsideration of the same matter by the same Judge, while an appeal is heard by another Judge.
3. The grounds of review are narrower than the grounds of appeal.
4. There is no second review, but there is second appeal on a substantial question of law.