A Supreme Court Division Bench has delivered a split verdict on the issue as to whether review of a judgement delivered relying on a precedent that was later overruled should be allowed or not.

While Justice MR Shah while allowing the review petitions opined that subsequent overruling can be a ground for review, Justice BV Nagarathna disagreed and took a divergent view.

She observed that the petitions are not maintainable as Order XLVII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure bars the same. She was of the view that though the power to review is conferred by the Constitution and is, therefore, a Constitutional power, that power is circumscribed by the CPC and S.C. Rules, 2013.

Stating that the scope and power to review a judgment or order by the Supreme Court is restricted to the contours of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, she reiterated the fact that Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the S.C. Rules, 2013 made by virtue of Article 145 of the Constitution of India states that, in any civil case, review lies on any of the grounds stated under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

Thus, she established, any person considering himself aggrieved can seek a review of the judgment or order only on the below grounds:

i) due to discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person aggrieved or the person seeking review could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or

ii) due to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or

iii) on account of any other sufficient reason

The genesis of the issue stems from a dispute surrounding the 2014 Pune Municipal Corporation and 2020 Indore Development Authority judgments of the Supreme Court on Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act of 2013.

A slew of review petitions has been filed in cases that were decided based on the Pune judgment before the Indore judgment was delivered. Justice Shah has stated that there is scope to review these judgments in light of the subsequent overruling of Pune judgment in Indore judgment.

"The Constitution Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision (of Indore Development Authority) has not only observed that the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) is overruled but has also specifically observed that all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been followed, are also overruled," he said.

Contrary to this, Justice Nagarathna has stated that cases decided prior to Indore Development Authority based on the Pune Municipal Corporation cannot be reviewed as she reasoned that though the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation has been overruled, it would only lose its value as a precedent subsequent to the dictum of the larger bench in Indore Development Authority.

Passing of subsequent judgment overruling the Pune Municipal Corporation cannot be a ground to not implement the orders passed based on it as regard inter-se disputes between the parties, she enunciated.

"This would open a Pandora’s Box and upset the binding nature of the decisions between the parties and be contrary to the doctrine of finality in litigation," she added.

CASE TITLE: Govt Of Nct Of Delhi Through The Secretary, Land And Building Department And Ors Vs M/s Kl Rathi Steels Limited And Ors, 2023 Latest Caselaw 213 SC

CASE DETAILS: Civil Appeal No. 11846 of 2016

CORAM: Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna

CITATION: 2023 Latest Caselaw 213 SC

Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com

 

Picture Source :