The question of whether new evidence can be introduced in a revision petition filed before the High Court is one of the most frequently asked and debated issues in civil and criminal procedural law. The direct answer is: as a general rule, it is not possible to introduce new evidence in a revision petition before the High Court because revision jurisdiction is limited to examining the legality, propriety, or regularity of an order passed by a lower court, and not for re-assessing or supplementing the factual matrix of the case. However, there are certain rare and exceptional circumstances under which the High Court may permit additional evidence, but these circumstances are very limited and strictly governed by procedural law.
In this article, we will explore this topic in depth — starting with the concept of a revision petition, the nature of revisionary jurisdiction under both civil and criminal law, relevant provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), judicial interpretations by the Supreme Court and High Courts, and practical considerations for litigants.
1. Understanding a Revision Petition
A revision petition is a special legal remedy available to a party who is aggrieved by an order of a subordinate court but does not have a right to appeal. The High Court (and in criminal matters, also the Sessions Court) exercises its revisionary powers to ensure that the lower courts have acted within the jurisdiction vested in them by law, and that there is no miscarriage of justice.
- Civil Revision Petition – Governed mainly by Section 115 of the CPC.
- Criminal Revision Petition – Governed mainly by Sections 397 to 401 of the CrPC.
In both cases, the revision petition is not a continuation of the original trial or proceeding, unlike an appeal. It is a supervisory jurisdiction where the High Court examines whether the lower court’s decision suffers from jurisdictional error, illegality, or procedural irregularity.
2. Nature of Revisionary Jurisdiction: Supervisory, Not Appellate
The powers of a revisional court are narrower than those of an appellate court. While an appellate court can re-evaluate the entire evidence, hear fresh arguments, and even admit new evidence subject to the rules in Order XLI Rule 27 CPC (for civil appeals), the High Court in revision cannot ordinarily do so.
This is because:
- Revision is meant to correct errors of jurisdiction or material irregularities and not to reassess factual findings.
- The High Court’s revisional power is meant to ensure that justice is not defeated due to procedural mistakes or jurisdictional overreach by subordinate courts.
Thus, the very nature of revisionary jurisdiction restricts the introduction of new evidence at this stage.
3. Legal Provisions on Admission of New Evidence
3.1 Civil Revision Petitions – CPC
- Section 115 CPC is the main provision.
It allows the High Court to call for the record of a case decided by a subordinate court to examine the legality, propriety, or jurisdictional correctness of the order. - There is no provision in Section 115 CPC for leading new evidence at the revisional stage.
- The High Court generally confines itself to the record of the lower court proceedings.
The only provision allowing additional evidence in civil proceedings is Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, but this applies to appeals, not revisions. Thus, unless the High Court converts the revision into some other form of proceeding (which is rare), the normal rule is that no new evidence will be allowed.
3.2 Criminal Revision Petitions – CrPC
- Sections 397 to 401 CrPC govern criminal revisions.
- Section 399 CrPC provides similar powers to the Sessions Judge as the High Court in certain situations.
- The revisional court may exercise some powers of an appellate court under Section 401 CrPC, but these powers are also subject to limitations.
While the CrPC gives revisional courts wide powers (including the power to examine the record and call for additional documents if necessary), the revisional court generally does not allow the production of new evidence as it is not conducting a de novo trial.
4. Judicial View: Case Laws on Introduction of New Evidence in Revision
4.1 Leading Supreme Court Decisions
- Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon (1964 AIR SC 497): The Supreme Court held that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is strictly limited and cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction. The revisional court is not authorized to re-appreciate evidence or take fresh evidence.
- Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai (1987 AIR SC 203): The Court emphasized that the revisional court cannot interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence at all.
- Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (1977 AIR SC 2185): In the context of criminal revisions, the Supreme Court held that the High Court must confine itself to the record and legality of the order and cannot act as if it were conducting a fresh trial.
4.2 High Court Rulings
Numerous High Courts (Delhi, Bombay, Madras, Kerala) have consistently held that no new evidence can be allowed at the revisional stage, except in rare situations where the High Court uses its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC (civil) or Section 482 CrPC (criminal) to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice.
5. Limited Exceptions Where New Evidence May Be Considered
While the general rule is “no new evidence,” the following limited exceptions have been recognized:
- Document Already on Record but Overlooked: If a document or piece of evidence was filed before the lower court but was overlooked or improperly excluded, the High Court may take it into account because it is part of the record.
- Evidence Necessary to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice: Under its inherent powers (Section 151 CPC or Section 482 CrPC), the High Court may in rare cases direct the production of certain material or documents to prevent injustice.
- Technical/Procedural Evidence: For example, if a certified copy of an already proven document is required to clarify a jurisdictional issue, the High Court may allow it.
- Calling Records from Lower Courts: The High Court can call for the complete record of the case to verify legality or jurisdictional issues.
However, it is crucial to understand that these exceptions do not amount to “allowing new evidence” in the conventional sense. The High Court is merely supplementing the record for its supervisory review — not conducting a trial or fresh appreciation of evidence.
6. Practical Implications for Litigants
- Parties should present all their evidence before the trial court itself. Waiting to produce evidence at the revisional stage is almost always futile.
- If evidence is crucial and was omitted, consider other legal remedies. For example, a review petition before the same court, or an appeal where new evidence may be allowed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.
- File an affidavit explaining why evidence could not be produced earlier if seeking extraordinary permission under inherent powers.
7. Key Differences Between Appeal and Revision Regarding Evidence
| Feature | Appeal | Revision |
|---|---|---|
| Right to introduce new evidence | Permitted under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC (civil) or appellate powers (criminal) | Not permitted except in rare cases |
| Nature of jurisdiction | Substantive re-hearing | Supervisory |
| Focus | Merits, facts, and law | Legality, jurisdiction, and procedural propriety |
8. Role of Sections 151 CPC and 482 CrPC (Inherent Powers)
Inherent powers act as a safety valve:
- Section 151 CPC allows courts to act ex debito justitiae (to do real and substantial justice) where the CPC is silent.
- Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to make orders to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.
Using these provisions, the High Court may in extremely rare cases direct additional documents to be produced. But these powers are exercised sparingly and not to fill evidentiary gaps.
9. Strategic Advice for Lawyers
- Focus on procedural defects or jurisdictional errors when drafting a revision petition.
- Avoid framing your case as a factual dispute. The High Court is unlikely to re-assess facts or admit new evidence.
- Prepare a comprehensive record from the beginning to avoid later procedural hurdles.
- If new evidence is crucial, explain its relevance and why it could not be produced earlier. Even then, expect strict scrutiny.
10. Conclusion
To conclude, it is generally not possible to introduce new evidence in a revision petition in the High Court, whether civil or criminal, because the revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and limited to examining the legality, propriety, or regularity of the order passed by the lower court. The revisional court does not function as an appellate court and hence does not reappreciate evidence or conduct a fresh trial. Only in rare and exceptional cases — to prevent a miscarriage of justice — may the High Court allow certain additional material under its inherent powers.
Therefore, any party intending to seek revision before the High Court should ensure that all necessary evidence and documents are presented at the trial stage itself. Revision petitions should be focused strictly on errors of jurisdiction, illegality, or material irregularity, rather than as an attempt to re-argue the case on facts or introduce new evidence.
11. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. Can new evidence be produced in a civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC?
No. As a general rule, new evidence cannot be produced in a civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC. The High Court examines only the record from the lower court.
Q2. Can the High Court call for documents not on record during a criminal revision?
The High Court may call for records under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, but this is to verify the legality of the order, not to admit new evidence as in a trial.
Q3. Is there any provision like Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for revisions?
No. Order XLI Rule 27 CPC applies only to appeals. Revision petitions have no similar statutory provision.
Q4. Can inherent powers (Section 151 CPC or Section 482 CrPC) be used to introduce evidence?
Yes, but only in exceptional cases to prevent gross injustice. Such powers are discretionary and sparingly used.
Q5. What should a party do if crucial evidence was not filed before the trial court?
They should consider filing a review petition, an appeal, or a fresh suit (if permissible), rather than relying on the revisional stage.
Q6. Why is revision jurisdiction so restrictive?
Because the legislature intends to prevent endless litigation and to keep revisions limited to jurisdictional and procedural errors rather than re-trying cases.
Important: Kindly Refer New Corresponding Sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, (BNS); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, (BNSS); & Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, (BSA) for IPC; CrPC & IEA used in the article.
Disclaimer: This information is intended for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a qualified lawyer for personalized advice specific to your situation.
Adcocate J.S. Rohilla (Civil & Criminal Lawyer in Indore)
Contact: 88271 22304