Review petition barred by unexplained delay; later overruling decision is not a valid ground for review.

An unexplained inordinate delay of 761 days justified rejection of the review petition, as the defects noted by the office were not removed and no satisfactory explanation was offered. A later decision overruling or modifying the earlier legal view did not furnish a ground for review, because Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC excludes such a basis and the same principle applied by analogy. The review petition therefore failed on limitation and on merits, and reopening of the earlier judgment was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the review petition was liable to be dismissed for unexplained inordinate delay; (ii) whether a subsequent decision overruling the earlier judgment furnished a ground for review.

Issue (i): whether the review petition was liable to be dismissed for unexplained inordinate delay.

Analysis: The delay of 761 days was not satisfactorily explained and the defects noted by the office were not removed. A review petition can be rejected where the delay remains wholly unexplained.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether a subsequent decision overruling the earlier judgment furnished a ground for review.

Analysis: The subsequent reversal or modification of a legal view by another decision is not a valid basis for review. Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 excludes such a ground, and the same principle applies by analogy to the present proceedings.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The review petition failed both on limitation and on merits, and no basis was made out to reopen the earlier judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: A review cannot be maintained merely because the earlier decision has later been overruled or modified in another case, and an unexplained inordinate delay independently justifies rejection of the review.

---