- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shanti Devi v. State Of Haryana And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns a review petition. The court considered an office report dated 17-3-1999 noting that defects had not been removed. The petition was filed with a delay of 761 days, which the court found was not sufficiently explained. The court nevertheless examined the review petition on merits, including a contention that the judgment sought to be reviewed had been overruled in another case subsequently.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the review petition should be dismissed due to unexplained inordinate delay and failure to remove office objections/defects.
- Whether a subsequent overruling (or reversal/modification) of the legal basis of the impugned judgment in another case is a permissible ground for review in light of the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first relied on the office report dated 17-3-1999 and noted that the defects identified had not been removed. It also found that the delay of 761 days had not been sufficiently explained. On this procedural ground alone, the court held the review petition was liable to be dismissed.
Even so, the court examined the petition on merits. It rejected the contention that review was justified because the judgment sought to be reviewed had later been overruled in another case. The court held that such a ground is expressly barred by the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that reversal or modification of the legal decision underpinning the judgment by a subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case shall not be a ground for review. The court stated that the same provision, by analogy, applied to the present proceedings.
Accordingly, the court concluded that the review petition failed on merits as well.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED — The review petition was dismissed both for unexplained inordinate delay (and non-removal of defects) and on merits.
The direct effect is that the judgment sought to be reviewed remains undisturbed. The court also applied the statutory limitation on review under the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, and the opinion does not indicate that any broader implications or new precedent were set beyond dismissing the review petition on these grounds.
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 reads 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.
Alert