[2026:RJ-JP:24376-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1468/2025 URN: SAW / 3347U / 2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3955/1999 1. Ramesh Chandra Soni, Deceased Represented By- 1/1. Smt. Chandra Kanta Soni W/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chandra Soni, Resident Of 12/67, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). 1/2. Rajni Kant Soni S/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chandra Soni, Resident Of 12/67, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). 1/3. Neetu Soni D/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chandra Soni Wife Of Bhanu Prakash Soni, Resident Of 12/67, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). ----Appellants Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government Of Rajasthan, Home Department, Administrative Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Deputy Inspector General Of Police (I), Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur (Rajasthan) (J-Law, Jhalana Institutional Area Jaipur) 3. Superintendent Of Police (II), Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur (Rajasthan) (J-Law, Jhalana Institutional Area Jaipur) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Kaushik For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 02/07/2026 [2026:RJ-JP:24376-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1468/2025] 1. The issue raised in this appeal stands finally adjudicated by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.396/2026: Munnidevi Sitani Vs. Benami Prohibitiaon Unit (2) and Anr. and other connected matters decided on 20.05.2026, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as under: "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 [2026:RJ-JP:24376-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1468/2025] 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. 12. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file. 2. In view of the above judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Munnidevi Sitani Vs. Benami Prohibitiaon Unit (2) and Anr. (supra), the present special appeal stands dismissed mutatis mutandis. 3. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Gaurav/Diksha/8