Appeal vs Revision
Understanding the distinction between Appeal and Revision can be challenging for many, as these terms are not commonly used in everyday language. In legal contexts, however, they represent two crucial types of applications available to a party dissatisfied with a previous court order. They also make up the most important and primary types of jurisdiction given to appellate courts. While the term Appeal might be more familiar, Revision is also significant. To comprehend these terms, it is essential to examine their definitions.
What is an Appeal?
An Appeal is traditionally defined in law as a request by an unsuccessful party in a lawsuit to a higher court with the jurisdiction to review a final decision of a lower court. Other sources describe this power of review as assessing the validity of the lower court’s decision. A person typically files an Appeal to seek a reversal of the lower court’s decision. The appellate court, upon reviewing the decision, may either agree with it and affirm it, reverse it, or partially reverse and affirm it. Generally, a person files an Appeal when they believe that the lower court made a mistake based on the law or the facts. The appellate court’s function is to review the decision by focusing on its legality and reasonableness. An Appeal is a statutory right granted to a party. The party filing an Appeal is known as the Appellant, while the person against whom the Appeal is filed is known as the Respondent or Appellee. To succeed in an Appeal, the Appellant must file a notice of Appeal along with the necessary supporting documents within the time limit specified by statute.
What is a Revision?
The term Revision may not be as well-known as Appeal, as it does not exist in every jurisdiction. It is defined as the re-examination of legal actions that involve the illegal assumption, non-exercise, or irregular exercise of jurisdiction by a lower court. This means that a higher court will assess the decision of a lower court to determine if the latter exercised a jurisdiction it did not have or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or acted illegally in exercising its jurisdiction. Revision is not a statutory right granted to a dissatisfied party in a legal action. Instead, the person applying for Revision generally appeals to the court’s discretion. Thus, the power of Revision lies at the discretion of the court, meaning that a court can choose whether or not to examine a lower court’s decision. Revisionary jurisdiction is a crucial type of jurisdiction granted to higher courts or appellate courts in addition to appellate jurisdiction. In an application for Revision, the higher court will only look at the legality and procedural accuracy or correctness of the lower court’s decision. The purpose of Revision is to ensure the proper administration of justice and the correction of all errors to prevent a miscarriage of justice. If the appellate court is satisfied that the lower court followed the correct procedure and the decision is legally sound, it will not reverse or change the decision. This applies even if the decision’s terms may be deemed unreasonable. Consequently, the objective of a Revision application is not to delve into the merits of the original case but to examine whether the decision made was legal and procedurally sound.
Key Takeaways
- Appeal is a statutory right available to a party in a legal action, whereas Revision is a discretionary power of the higher court.
- An Appeal may involve a review of questions of law and/or fact, while Revision applications only examine questions of legality, jurisdiction, and/or procedural impropriety.
- Generally, an Appeal must be filed within a certain time limit prescribed by statute, which begins after the lower court’s final decision. In contrast, Revision has no such time limit, although applicants must file within a reasonable amount of time.
