[2026:RJ-JP:1944-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3841/2023 Navneet Saraf S/o Late Sh. Girdhari Lal Saraf, Aged About 52 Years, R/o K-4, Keshav Path, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302021 ----Appellant Versus Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement, Jaipur Zonal Office, Ii Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-Ii, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302003 ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prakhar Gupta with Mr. Sanjay Sharma. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj with Ms. Asmita Sharma. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 16/01/2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1976”) at New Delhi, whereby the stay application filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent finally attached the appellant’s property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2002”), and the said attachment was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 25.08.2022. Thereafter, [2026:RJ-JP:1944-DB] (2 of 5) [CMA-3841/2023] the respondent issued an eviction notice to the appellant on 30.08.2022, pursuant to which possession of the property was taken over by the respondent on 06.10.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed an application seeking restoration of possession of the property on 08.02.2023, however, the said application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 10.08.2023. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the application for restoration of possession, particularly when a similar stay application filed by other similarly situated persons was allowed by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant had filed the appeal before the learned Tribunal within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act of 2002, therefore, the appellant was entitled to the same relief as granted to other similarly situated persons. 4. In support of his contention counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. Vs. Union of India reported in 2022 ALL SCR (Crl.) 1817. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the appellant himself was negligent in not approaching the learned Tribunal within the prescribed time. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant filed the application for restoration of possession after an inordinate delay and without challenging the eviction notice dated 30.08.2022 or the order taking possession dated [2026:RJ-JP:1944-DB] (3 of 5) [CMA-3841/2023] 06.10.2022, on these grounds, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The learned Tribunal while dismissed the application observed as under:- “We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties. It is a fact that after an order of Provisional Attachment on 11th February, 2022 the order of confirmation was passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 25th August, 2022. The legal issue in reference to it has been raised in the Appeal which would be dealt after hearing the parties finally. It is fact that notice for possession was served on the Appellant on 31st August, 2022 and the Appeal was filed on 21st November, 2022 along with the stay application. The Appellant did not make effort to press the stay application by getting the Appeal listed at an early date. It is more so when the Tribunal was permitting listing of the case even on the next date if notice for possession is served. The record shows that even when the Appeal was listed on 17th January, 2023 none appears on behalf of the Appellant. The Appeal was not yet dismissed for non-prosecution rather Tribunal adjourned the Appeal. In the meantime, the possession of the property was taken. The Appellant is now seeking restoration of possession without seeking quashing of notice for possession despite its being given effect. In view of the above, the Tribunal is not inclined to order for restoration of possession to benefit the Appellant, who remain defaulter in pursuing the Appeal. The default to pursue of the Appeal cannot be to the benefit of the Appellant. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that no exceptional reasons for taking possession have been given. The issues aforesaid could have been considered by the Tribunal if the stay application would have pressed immediately on filing of the Appeal or before the possession and not at the stage when the notice has already been effect to. It is otherwise a fact that the similarly placed could pursue the appeal and stay [2026:RJ-JP:1944-DB] (4 of 5) [CMA-3841/2023] application expeditiously and before the possession thus interim order was passed in their favour. Thereby whoever remains vigilant, an appropriate order is passed but the same benefit cannot be extended to the person who was sleeping over the matter. The default of the Appellant to pursue the Appeal is Writ Large therefore we are not inclined to accept the prayer for restoration of the possession on the facts and circumstances of the case and when the prayer for quashing of the order of notice under Section 8(4) of the Act of 2002 has not been prayed. The application is accordingly dismissed. The reply to the Appeal has already been filed. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant prays and granted four weeks’ time to file rejoinder. List the Appeal on 03rd October, 2023 for final hearing.” 8. This appeal filed on behalf of the appellant deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the appellant failed to challenge the eviction notice dated 30.08.2022 and the order taking possession dated 06.10.2022 before the learned Tribunal; secondly, the petitioner himself was negligent in not pursuing his stay application, as he failed to appear before the learned Tribunal, when the matter was listed and the learned Tribunal has rightly discussed this fact in its impugned order; thirdly, as informed by learned counsel for the for respondent, the appellant has been arrayed as an accused in the present matter and a supplementary prosecution complaint has been filed before the learned Trial Court and lastly, the appeal filed by the appellant against the attachment order is still pending before the learned Tribunal. 9. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed. All the pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. [2026:RJ-JP:1944-DB] (5 of 5) [CMA-3841/2023] 10. However, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties that the appeals filed by similarly situated persons have already been disposed of by the learned Tribunal, therefore, the learned Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal filed by the appellant expeditiously, in accordance with law. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/16