Review Petition

A narrow second look, not a second chance to re-argue the case.

Once the Supreme Court delivers a final judgment, the matter is ordinarily closed. A review petition is the one, deliberately limited, opportunity to ask the same bench to reconsider its own decision — and it is not, contrary to common assumption, a chance to re-argue the case as though it were a fresh appeal. MovLegal advises clients honestly on whether a genuine ground for review exists before recommending this route, since a review petition filed on weak grounds rarely succeeds and can prolong a matter without any real prospect of a different outcome.

Why This Matters

The grounds for review are narrow by design, under Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules and the Court’s own consistent jurisprudence: an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence that could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence, or some other sufficient reason analogous to these. Disagreement with the Court’s reasoning, however strongly felt, is not itself a ground for review — and petitions filed on that basis alone are dismissed as a matter of course.

What Qualifies as a Genuine Ground

Error Apparent on the Face of the Record

A mistake so evident that it does not require an elaborate process of reasoning to establish — typically a factual error, an overlooked statutory provision, or a clear internal inconsistency in the judgment itself.

Discovery of New Evidence

Evidence that is genuinely new, material to the outcome, and was not available to the party despite exercising due diligence at the time of the original hearing — not evidence a party simply failed to present.

Other Sufficient Cause

A narrow residual category, applied sparingly, covering circumstances analogous in gravity to the two grounds above.

How We Assess a Potential Review

We review the judgment against these established grounds with deliberate scepticism, because our role is to give clients an accurate assessment — not simply to file every review petition a disappointed client might want filed. Where a genuine ground exists, we prepare a review petition that is precise and narrowly focused on that ground, since review petitions are typically considered by circulation, without oral hearing, making the written petition the entirety of the case.

Who We Work With

• Clients who have received an adverse final judgment and believe it contains a genuine, demonstrable error
• Parties who have discovered new, material evidence after judgment that could not have been produced earlier
• Clients seeking an honest assessment of whether review is worth pursuing, rather than automatic reassurance

Get in Touch

Review is narrow, and success depends entirely on whether a genuine ground exists. Book a consultation for a candid assessment of your judgment.