1. Review petition challenging an order based on a three-judge bench decision, filed with significant delay. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 384
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : S.B.Majmudar
Union Of India
Versus
Mohd.Nayyar Khalil
Case No. : 91 of 2000
Date of Decision : 2/16/00
A review petition is barred if the delay in filing is not satisfactorily explained. Additionally, under Order 47 Rule 1(2) of the CPC, a subsequent reversal or modification of a legal precedent by a superior court is not a valid ground for review.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 47 Rule 1(2) - Review Petition - Limitation - Delay of 690 days not satisfactorily explained - Review petition liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. (Para 1)
(B) Review Petition - Ground for review - Subsequent decision of a superior court - The fact that a 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 - Pending scrutiny of a precedent by a Constitution Bench is not relevant for deciding a review petition if the precedent was valid at the time the order was passed and was not pointed out to the Bench. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
A review petition was filed with a delay of 690 days. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was based on a three-judge bench decision which was currently pending scrutiny before a Constitution Bench.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the petition was not satisfactorily explained. On merits, it was observed that the impugned order followed the prevailing law at the time of its passing, and the pending scrutiny of that law by a higher bench does not justify a review.
Issues: Whether the review petition was barred by limitation and whether the pending scrutiny of a legal precedent by a Constitution Bench constitutes a valid ground for review under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: A review petition must be dismissed if the delay in filing is not satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, pursuant to the explanation to Order 47 Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a subsequent reversal or modification of a legal question by a superior court, or the pending scrutiny of a precedent, does not constitute a ground for review of a judgment based on the law as it existed at the time of the decision.
Result: Review petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to an order based on a precedent under scrutiny by a Constitution Bench and request for condonation of delay. (Para 1 )
3. Delay was not satisfactorily explained; pending scrutiny of a precedent by a Constitution Bench does not justify review if the precedent was valid when the order was passed. (Para 1 )
4. Subsequent reversal or modification of a decision on a question of law by a superior court is not a ground for review under Order 47 Rule 1(2), CPC. (Para 1 )
5. Review petition dismissed on grounds of limitation and merits. (Para 2 )
6. Does an unexplained delay affect the maintainability of a review petition?
Yes, if the delay in filing a review petition is not satisfactorily explained, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. (Para 1 )
7. Can a judgment be reviewed if the legal precedent it relied upon is later reversed or modified by a superior court?
No, according to the explanation to Order 47 Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the fact that a decision on a question of law has been reversed or modified by a subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case is not a ground for review. (Para 1 )
8. Does the pending scrutiny of a precedent by a Constitution Bench justify a review of an order based on that precedent?
No, if the precedent had not been upset at the time the order was passed and the issue was not raised before the deciding Bench, pending scrutiny by a Constitution Bench is not a ground for review. (Para 1 )
(1) 690 days delay is not satisfactorily explained. Hence, the review petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation itself. However, we have also considered the merits of the review petition. The impugned order has followed a three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. M. Bhaskar. Even if the question regarding the legality of the said three-Judge Bench decision is pending scrutiny before the Constitution Bench the same is not relevant for deciding the review petition for two obvious reasons firstly, this was not pointed out to the Bench which decided the civil appeal; and secondly, by the time the impugned order was passed the three-Judge Bench judgment had not been upset and even in future if the Constitution Bench takes a contrary view it would be a subsequent event which cannot be a ground for review as is clear from the explanation to Order 47 Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under:
"EXPLANATION. 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."
(2) CONSEQUENTLY, even on merits the review petition is liable to fail. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of not satisfactorily explained delay as well as on merits.
