Back
1999(9) Supreme 293
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., S.B. Majmudar, J.
Shanti Devi -Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and Ors. -Respondents
Review Petition (C) No. ... of 1999 (RPD No. 1249 of 1999)
In
Civil Appeal No. 14608 of 1996
Decided on 7-4-1999
(ii) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 114 - Review-Delay in filing petition-761 days delay unexplained - Petition dismissed (Para 1)
ORDER
1. We have seen the office report dated 17-3-1999. The defects pointed out therein are not removed. The delay of 761 days is not sufficiently explained. Hence, this review petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
2. However, we have gone through the review petition and the grounds urged therein. The contention that the judgment sought to be reviewed was overruled in another case subsequently is no ground for reviewing the said decision. Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly rules out such type of review proceedings. Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 read as under :
"The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment."
The same provisions by analogy usefully apply to the present proceedings.
3. Hence, even on merits the review petition is liable to fail.
4. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed both on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay as well as on merits.
(C.R.) Review Petition dismissed.
**************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1999(9) Supreme 293
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
