Review applications under debt recovery law are separate proceedings, with no condonation of delay and an appealable dismissal.

Review applications under Rule 5A of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 are separate from original recovery applications under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, so Section 24 and the Limitation Act, 1963 do not apply. As Rule 5A prescribes a 30-day period and contains no power to condone delay, belated review filings cannot be entertained. The Act is a special, self-contained code, and the Tribunal is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure. Dismissal of a review application is therefore appealable under the Act, and Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC cannot be invoked to exclude that appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a review application filed under Rule 5A of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 is an "application" made to a Tribunal under Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 so as to attract the Limitation Act, 1963 and permit condonation of delay; (ii) Whether an appeal was maintainable against the dismissal of the review application and Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be invoked to hold otherwise.

Issue (i): Whether a review application filed under Rule 5A of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 is an "application" made to a Tribunal under Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 so as to attract the Limitation Act, 1963 and permit condonation of delay.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats an "application" under Section 2(b) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 as one made under Section 19. Section 19 governs original recovery proceedings, while review is specifically traceable to Section 22(2)(e) and Rule 5A of the Rules. The Court held that a review application is not an original recovery application and does not fall within Section 24. The earlier decision on limitation under Section 30 was read as confining Section 24 to Section 19 applications alone. Rule 5A, being peremptory, prescribes a 30-day period and contains no power of condonation. The Court also reaffirmed that review proceedings are distinct from the original hearing and cannot be treated as part and parcel of the original proceedings.

Conclusion: A review application under Rule 5A does not attract Section 24 of the Act, the Limitation Act does not apply, and delay beyond 30 days cannot be condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether an appeal was maintainable against the dismissal of the review application and Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be invoked to hold otherwise.

Analysis: The Court held that the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal are not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure by virtue of Section 22(1) of the Act, and that the Act is a special, self-contained code with overriding effect under Section 34. Since Section 20 provides for appeals from orders made under the Act, including orders in review matters, the High Court erred in treating the dismissal of the review application as non-appealable by relying on Order XLVII Rule 7. The conclusion that a writ petition would therefore be maintainable was rejected.

Conclusion: Order XLVII Rule 7 could not be applied, and the dismissal of the review application was appealable under the Act.

Final Conclusion: The impugned High Court judgment was unsustainable, the writ relief could not be sustained, and the appellant succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, Section 24 applies only to original applications under Section 19, while review proceedings under Rule 5A are separate, self-contained proceedings governed by their own limitation period and do not attract condonation under the Limitation Act.

---