The majority of legal systems have established appeals processes as a safeguard against judicial errors, allowing for a second look at factual and legal mistakes that may have arisen due to unintentional biases or inconsistencies in the initial proceedings. The purpose of establishing two levels of adjudication, in lower and higher courts, was to ensure that cases, in addition to being heard in the first instance court, would also be re-heared by a court of higher jurisdiction. This was done to guarantee the accuracy and correctness of judgments and to prevent judicial errors. Alongside the concept of re-hearing, the review of issued judgments and the reconsideration of the proceedings of the first-instance courts are concepts that define the appellate procedure of higher courts.This research compares the procedures of higher courts in Iran and England. Through a descriptive and analytical approach, the study clarifies the distinct meanings of "re-hearing", "review of proceedings", and "review of judgment" in these two legal systems. We have concluded that the appellate system in Iranian law, after the enactment of the Code of Civil Procedure in 1990, no longer constitutes a "re-hearing" in the full sense of the term. This type of adjudication, similar to the English legal system, has in fact been reduced to a more limited stage where the appellate court can only "review" or "revise" the original judgment and proceedings. The appellate court in this system has a limited scope of review. It cannot freely reverse the trial court's decision but can only correct errors or irregularities in the proceedings within the confines of the law.