Review dismissed for unexplained 2166-day delay and lack of error apparent on record.

The petitioner's predecessor, Rameshwar Prasad Soni, had preferred Second Appeal No. 794/1996 before the High Court. During its pendency, he sought withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the sole respondent, Chameli Bai, had expired on 19.12.2006 and had allegedly left behind no legal heirs capable of substitution.

Accordingly, the second appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 07.09.2012.

Rameshwar Prasad Soni thereafter filed the present review petition seeking recall/review of that order, asserting that it had subsequently come to his knowledge that certain persons were attempting to grab his property by falsely claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased Chameli Bai, and that the appeal had therefore been withdrawn under a mistaken belief.

The review petition was filed after a delay of 2166 days.

During its pendency, Rameshwar Prasad Soni died on 15.08.2023, whereupon his legal representatives moved IA No. 3372/2026 (substitution), IA No. 3373/2026 (condonation of delay), and IA No. 3374/2026 (setting aside abatement), pleading complete absence of knowledge of the litigation during the deceased's lifetime.

The Government Advocate opposed, contending that no specific explanation for the delay of 2166 days had been furnished.

1. Whether the petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, or whether the grounds urged amounted to an impermissible re-hearing on merits.

2. Whether the subsequent discovery that third persons were falsely claiming to be legal heirs of the deceased respondent constitutes a valid ground for review of the order dated 07.09.2012.

3. Whether the delay of 2166 days in filing the review petition merited condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the explanation offered by the legal representatives.

Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which review jurisdiction is strictly limited to errors apparent on the face of the record; a review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise, nor invoked for rehearing or reappreciation of evidence and issues already decided.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which mandates demonstration of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay.

Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2008) 17 SCC 448, which holds that courts cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity, that delay defeats equity, and that courts assist only those who are vigilant and "do not slumber over their rights".

Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi and Others, AIR 2022 SC 332.

Applying Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the Court found that the petition disclosed no error apparent on the face of the record; the grounds urged essentially sought reconsideration of the merits of the controversy and a challenge to the correctness of the earlier order — both falling outside the limited scope of review.

On the second issue, the Court held that the alleged subsequent discovery of impostors claiming heirship to Chameli Bai was simply not a ground for review of the order dated 07.09.2012.

On the question of delay, the Court reasoned that the plea of ignorance advanced by the legal representatives could not be countenanced, since the second appeal had been dismissed as withdrawn at the appellant's own request; consequently, no sufficient cause was shown for filing the review after more than two-and-a-half years.

The explanation for delay was characterised as "concocted," and the Section 5 application was found to be "very sketchy," offering no reasonable explanation for the delay of 2166 days.

Reinforcing this conclusion with the doctrine from Pundlik Jalam Patil and Majji Sannemma — that delay defeats equity and stale claims cannot be entertained — the Court declined to exercise discretion in favour of condonation.

Accordingly, IA No. 3373/2026 (application for condonation of delay) was dismissed [para. 13]; consequently, IA No. 3372/2026 (substitution of LRs) and IA No. 3374/2026 (setting aside abatement) were also rejected [para. 4]; and the review petition itself stood dismissed.

All pending applications were disposed of.