Subsequent change in legal view does not by itself justify review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

A subsequent decision taking a different view on the law does not, by itself, justify review under the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The SC noted that review cannot be founded solely on later reversal or modification of the legal position underlying the original judgment, and that an earlier three-judge bench decision of co-equal strength, which had not been noticed in the relied-upon order, governed the issue. On that basis, the liberty sought to pursue review was declined and the review petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether liberty could be granted to seek review on the basis that a later decision had taken a different view on the legal issue.

Analysis: The Court relied on the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which bars review merely because a subsequent decision of a superior court has reversed or modified the legal view on which the judgment was based. It also noted that an earlier three-judge bench decision of co-equal strength had not been noticed in the relied-upon order, and therefore the later liberty clause could not be followed in preference to the prior co-equal precedent.

Conclusion: Liberty to seek review was declined, and the review petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The judgment reaffirmed that a later change in legal position, by itself, does not furnish a ground for review, especially where a prior co-equal bench decision governs the issue.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent decision reversing or modifying the legal view underlying a judgment is not, by itself, a ground for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---