Reasonable time for revision under FEMA can bar stale applications when delay is excessive on the facts.

Where revisional power under the Foreign Exchange Management Act is conferred without a prescribed limitation period, the application must still be brought within a reasonable time judged on the facts. A delay of 4 years and 5 months was treated as beyond a reasonable period, so the Tribunal was justified in declining to entertain the revision. The appeal therefore failed, and the framed question of law did not survive for adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether a revision application filed after a delay of 4 years and 5 months could be entertained as having been filed within a reasonable period under the Foreign Exchange Management Act.

Analysis: The statutory provision governing revision did not prescribe any limitation period, but such provisions are construed by courts as requiring institution within a reasonable time. On the facts, a delay of 4 years and 5 months was held to be beyond a reasonable period, and the Tribunal was found justified in declining to entertain the revision application. In view of that conclusion, the question of law framed in the appeal did not survive.

Conclusion: The revision application was not maintainable as it was filed beyond a reasonable period, and the finding against entertainment of the revision was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the impugned revision was barred by unreasonable delay, leaving no surviving question of law for adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers revisional power without prescribing limitation, the application must be filed within a reasonable period, to be determined on the facts of the case.

---