SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.B. Majmudar and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.

Review Petition (C) No. 91 of 2000 in Civil Appeal (C) No. 7717 of 1997. D/d. 16.2.2000.

Union of India and others - Petitioners

Versus

Mohd. Nayyar Khalil and others - Respondents

A. Constitution of India, Article 137 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order 11 Rule 2 - Review - Delay and laches - 690 days' delay not satisfactory explained - Review petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation itself.

[Para 1]

B. Constitution of India, Article 137 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 47 Rule 1(2) - Review - Impugned order followed a three-Judge Bench judgment of Supreme Court - 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 as this was not pointed out to the Bench which decided the civil appeal; and 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 CPC.

[Para 1]

Cases Referred :-

Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, (1996) 4 SCC 416 .

ORDER

S.B. Majmudar, J. - 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, (1996) 4 SCC 416 . 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.

Review petition dismissed.