1. Review petition challenging an order based on a three-Judge Bench decision, filed with a significant delay. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 391
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
MOHD NAYYAR KHALIL
Decided on : February 16, 2000
The pending scrutiny of the legality of a judgment was deemed irrelevant for deciding the review petition, and the fact that a decision on a question of law has been reversed or modified by a subsequent decision of a superior court shall not be a ground for review of such judgment.
Headnote:
Limitation - Review Petition - The court dismissed the review petition due to a 690-day delay, and also considered the merits of the review petition. The impugned order followed a three-Judge Bench judgment, and the pending scrutiny of the legality of the said judgment was deemed irrelevant for deciding the review petition. The court emphasized that the fact that the decision on a question of law has been reversed or modified by a subsequent decision of a superior court shall not be a ground for review of such judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The review petition was dismissed due to a 690-day delay and on merits.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the review petition on the ground of not satisfactorily explained delay as well as on merits.
Issues: Limitation, Merits of the Review Petition
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the pending scrutiny of the legality of a judgment was irrelevant for deciding the review petition, and the fact that a decision on a question of law has been reversed or modified by a subsequent decision of a superior court shall not be a ground for review of such judgment.
Final Decision: The review petition was dismissed due to a 690-day delay and on merits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Review sought on the ground that the underlying three-Judge Bench decision is pending scrutiny before a Constitution Bench. (Para 1 )
3. Unexplained delay renders the petition liable for dismissal; pending scrutiny of a precedent by a Constitution Bench does not justify review of a prior order. (Para 1 )
4. Subsequent reversal or modification of a legal question by a superior court in another case 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 in filing a review petition affect its maintainability?
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 principle it relied upon is later reversed or modified by a superior court in another case?
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 fact that a precedent is pending scrutiny before a Constitution Bench provide a ground for 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 relevant for deciding the review petition. (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.
