Even if the decision on a question of law has been reversed or modified by subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case it shall not be a ground for review of such judgment - subsequent change in law would not take away such rights which had attained finality due to lis coming to an end inter se the parties prior to such change."

Citation 

AIR 2023 SUPREME COURT 1558

2023(1) CTCOL 340

AIROnline 2023 SC 197

 

SUPREME COURT:  

(From : Madhya Pradesh)*

 

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. and DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

Civil Appeal Nos. 5328-5329 of 2016 with 1877 of 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12945 of 2019), 409-410 of 2021, 407-408 of 2021, 2370-2371 of 2021, 10239 of 2018, D/-22-3-2023

Shramjeevi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Dinesh Joshi

26. It is well settled that even if the decision on a question of law has been reversed or modified by subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case it shall not be a ground for review of such judgment merely because a subsequent judgment of the Single Judge has taken contrary view. That does not confer jurisdiction upon the Tribunal to ignore the judgment and direction of the High Court given in the case of the appellants."

21. This court has also ruled, in Lekh Raj v. Ranjit Singh that subsequent changes in law, cannot divest parties of the benefit derived by them in a litigation that attained finality, through a decree:

8. (2018) 12 SCC 750 : (2017) 7 SCR 542: (AIR 2017 SC 4015).

"21. If the rights of the parties had already been crystallised then, in our opinion, subsequent change in law would not take away such rights which had attained finality due to lis coming to an end inter se the parties prior to such change."