Case Law Details
Munnidevi Sitani W/o Kalilash Chand Sitani Vs Benami Prohibition Unit (2) (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeals challenging the orders dated 10.07.2025 and 11.07.2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The Tribunal had allowed the review application filed by the Union of India, condoned the delay in filing it, and restored the appeals to their original number following the Supreme Court’s order dated 18.10.2024 reviewing its earlier judgment in Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited.
The appellants argued that subsequent judicial developments, including observations in another Supreme Court review matter and questions framed by the Gauhati High Court regarding the scope of review powers and limitation provisions, indicated that the Tribunal ought not to have recalled its earlier order dated 30.11.2022. They contended that the Tribunal’s order restoring the appeals deserved to be set aside.
The High Court noted that the Tribunal’s original order dated 30.11.2022 had expressly provided that if the Supreme Court reviewed its judgment in Ganpati Dealcom, the Union of India would be at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies, including filing a review petition before the Tribunal. Since the Supreme Court had subsequently recalled its earlier judgment on 18.10.2024, the Tribunal acted in accordance with that liberty while entertaining the review application.
The Court observed that the Tribunal had merely implemented the consequences flowing from the Supreme Court’s review order and had not undertaken any independent exercise contrary to law. The Tribunal had also considered the explanation regarding the delay in filing the review applications and concluded that the delay deserved to be condoned, particularly because the original orders had been passed solely on the basis of the Supreme Court’s earlier decision without examining the merits of the appeals.
Rejecting the appellants’ objections relating to the power of review and limitation, the High Court held that the appellants could not challenge the restoration of appeals when the original order itself had contemplated such a course upon review of the Supreme Court judgment.
The Court further held that the appeals were not maintainable. It observed that an order passed in review, resulting in the revival of the original proceedings, does not amount to a final decision appealable under Section 49 of the Act. Referring to Section 40(5) of the Act and Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court held that appeals against such review orders were barred. Consequently, the appeals and all pending applications were dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. The challenge is to the order dated 11.07.2025, whereby, the Tribunal has directed the review application and application for condonation of delay to be governed by the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by it earlier, whereby, the review application filed by the respondents-Union of India had been allowed in light of order passed in review by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the appeals had been restored to its original number. The appellants’ appeal was therefore, restored to its original number by the impugned order dated 11.07.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that so far as the original judgment passed in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 298 is concerned, the same was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the review and the review was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.10.2024 and the civil appeal was restored, however, in the other review petitions filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Virendra Amrutbhai Patel, Review Petition No.41854/2025 has taken a different view, relying on the judgments passed in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi Vs M/s. K.L Rathi Steels Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2023 SCC Online 288 and held that the power of review would not include re-examining of the case and he therefore, submits that the order passed in review ought not be taken into consideration for recalling the original order dated 30.11.2022 and restoring the appeals. He also relied upon an order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the Gauhati High Court in the case of Satyajit Saha & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. in ITA No. 1/2026 wherein, the Gauhati High Court has framed certain questions of law to be examined as to whether the power of review could be exercised in cases where there is limitation under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC, 1908 and Section 40(2)(F) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (for shot ‘the Act of 1988’).
3. Learned counsel further submits that the order passed by the Tribunal dated 11.07.2025 deserves to be set aside.
4. We have noticed that in the order dated 30.11.2022 while allowing the appeals, the Tribunal held as under:
“It is however made clear that if the Apex Court reviews its judgment, the respondent would be at liberty to take appropriate remedy pursuance to it which includes filing a review petition before this Tribunal.
It is also made clear that if the Department has an independent right to initiate the action taking the Amendment Act, 2016 to be prospective and does not offend the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.” (supra) then this order would not come in their way as otherwise action can be governed by para 130(f) of the judgment (supra)”
5. The appeal was allowed in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited (supra), however the judgment passed was recalled and the entire order dated 23.08.2022 was set at naught by the order passed in the review petition.
6. It would be apposite to quote the relevant paras of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 10.07.2025 as under:
“6.The Counsel submitted that occasion to seek review of the order arose when the Apex Court on a Review Petition in the case of Union of India and another versus Ganpati Dealcom Pot. Ltd. passed an order on 18.10.2024 recalling its judgment. It became cause for the filing of Review/Rectification Application before this Tribunal and within reasonable time, the Review/ Rectification Applications were filed. Minor delay of few days occurred in the administrative process after the order dated 18.10.2024, thus, deserves to be condoned because in majority of the case Review / Rectification Application was filed in December, 2024 or January, 2025 i.e. within 60 to 90 days of the order of the Apex Court. Delay in filing of the Review/ Rectification application, thus deserves to be condoned. It is more so when a Review / Rectification of the order would be in reference to the order of the Apex Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra) dated 18.10.2024 which would result in recall of the order sought to be reviewed to restore the appeal for its hearing on merit because the order under review was passed without touching the merits of the case, rather, applying the judgment of the Apex Court in Ganpati Dealcom (supra). The application for Condonation of Delay should not be effected ignoring the merit of the Review Application in the light of catena of judgments of the Apex Court. The prayer was accordingly made to allow the applications.
The application for Condonation of Delay was seriously contested by the non-applicant. It was submitted that the application to seek Review/Rectification of the order of this Tribunal suffers from huge delay and therefore, application deserves to be dismissed. It is more so when no explanation for delay has been given. It could not have been in reference to order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra) on a Review Petition and even if it has some substance, the period subsequent to the order dated 18.10.2024 remains unexplained. The prayer was accordingly made to dismiss the application for Condonation of Delay.
7. In terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the application for seeking review has been moved before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has not done anything else except following the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We therefore, would not interfere with such an order which is nothing else but following the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.10.2024.
8. The argument advanced before us with regard to the power of review to be exercised and the limitation provisions are noticed and needs to be rejected. It is for this purpose that we have quoted the order passed earlier by the Tribunal which specifically mentions that if the judgment passed in the case of Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited (supra) is reviewed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Union of India-respondent would be at liberty to file review petition. Once liberty was granted in the original order dated 30.11.2022, the present appeals cannot turn around and challenge the order passed by the Tribunal restoring the appeals based on the judgments passed in the case of Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited (supra).
9. The appeals are wholly frivolous. We may also notice that while Section 49 allows appeals to be filed against any judgment and order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, it would not include an order passed in review as the review results in pendency of the appeal itself and cannot be said to be a decision or order finally deciding the appeal. In fact, the Appellate Tribunal is treated as a Civil Court and has the power as available to the Civil Court and CPC would apply as provided under Section 40(5) and therefore the provisions of Order 47 Rule 7 CPC bars the appeals against the orders passed in review. It would be apposite to quote the provisions of Order 47 Rule 7 CPC as under:
7. Order of rejection not appealable. Objections to order granting application.—1[(1) An order of the Court rejecting the application shall not be appealable; but an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit.]
(2) Where the application has been rejected in consequence of the failure of the applicant to appear, he may apply for an order to have the rejected application restored to the file, and, where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing which such application was called on for hearing, the Court shall order it to be restored to the file upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for hearing the same.
(3) No order shall be made under sub-rule (2) unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party.
10. In view of the above, the present appeals are not maintainable and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.
11. All pending application(s), also stand dismissed.
A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.
Author Bio
