Review barred by unexplained delay and later judgment could not reopen a final decision.

A civil review filed with a 619-day delay was rejected because the delay was not satisfactorily explained and no sufficient cause was shown for exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court also held that a later Supreme Court decision, by itself, does not reopen a judgment that has already attained finality, and the Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 bars review on that basis. As neither unexplained delay nor the subsequent judgment furnished a valid ground, the review petition could not be entertained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 619 days in filing the civil review deserved condonation. (ii) Whether a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court furnished a valid ground for review of the earlier judgment.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 619 days in filing the civil review deserved condonation.

Analysis: The explanation offered for the long delay was found unsatisfactory. The Court held that the delay was not properly explained and declined to accept the cause shown for invoking the discretionary power under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court furnished a valid ground for review of the earlier judgment.

Analysis: The Court held that a later decision cannot, by itself, reopen a concluded judgment where the earlier decision had already attained finality. The Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was treated as barring review on the basis of a subsequent reversal or modification in another case. The reliance placed on the later Supreme Court decision was therefore held insufficient to sustain review.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out.

Final Conclusion: The review petition could not be entertained either on account of unexplained delay or on the basis of a subsequent judgment, and the challenge to the earlier tax appeal order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent decision in another case does not, by itself, furnish a ground to review a concluded judgment, and a long delay in seeking review must be satisfactorily explained before discretionary relief can be granted.

---