Order XLVII r.1 CPC

Order XLVII r.1 CPC — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section Order XLVII r.1 CPC, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Union of India v Virendra Amrutbhai Patel Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My benami matter was decided on the strength of Ganpati Dealcom and became final. The Supreme Court has now recalled that judgment. Can the Department reopen my case by review?
  On this order, no. A two-Judge Bench declined to act on the clause in the 18 October 2024 recall order that gave aggrieved parties liberty to seek review of decisions founded on Ganpati Dealcom. It applied the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC — that reversal or modification of a proposition of law by a later decision is not a ground of review — and dismissed the Union's review petition.
• Kunhayammed v State of Kerala Supreme CourtHelps department
  The department's SLP against a High Court judgment in my favour was dismissed. Is that judgment now a Supreme Court decision?
  No. Refusal of special leave, whether by a non-speaking order or a speaking one, is not an exercise of appellate jurisdiction and does not attract the doctrine of merger - the High Court's order remains the operative order. If the refusal gives reasons, those reasons are a declaration of law under Article 141 and bind the courts below, but the High Court judgment does not become a Supreme Court judgment. It is only once leave is granted and the appeal is decided that the order below merges in the Supreme Court's order.
• Manik Seth v Initiating Officer, BPU, Ludhiana High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  The Appellate Tribunal allowed my benami appeal years ago. After the Ganpati Dealcom recall it has reopened the matter on the Department's review. Can it do that?
  On this judgment, yes, where the Tribunal's own earlier order reserved that liberty. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed writ petitions against the Appellate Tribunal's order granting review and restoring the appeals. It held that s.40 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act leaves the Tribunal free to regulate its own procedure and expressly includes the power of review, and that the petitioners had acquiesced in an earlier order which itself gave the Department liberty to apply for review if the Supreme Court reviewed Ganpati Dealcom.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.