https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754689 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. en-us Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754689 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754689