Review jurisdiction requires independent statutory grounds; Supreme Court liberty in another case does not by itself justify reopening final orders.

A review cannot be allowed merely because the Supreme Court granted liberty in another matter; the tribunal must independently satisfy the statutory requirements for review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, as applicable to the Benami Act. A later decision or change in legal position does not, by itself, reopen a final judgment. Because the Appellate Tribunal recalled its earlier decision solely on the basis of such liberty without examining whether review jurisdiction was otherwise made out, the review order was held unsustainable and set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal could allow the review petition solely on the basis of liberty granted by the Supreme Court without examining whether the statutory requirements for review under the Code of Civil Procedure were satisfied.

Analysis: The appeal arose from an order by which the Appellate Tribunal recalled its earlier decision and restored the appeals only because liberty had been granted by the Supreme Court in a later order. The Court held that, under the governing law on review, a subsequent decision or change in legal position does not by itself justify review. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the review application satisfied the requirements of Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with the applicable provision of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988. In view of the binding earlier and later Supreme Court authorities on the limits of review jurisdiction, the Tribunal could not rest its decision merely on the liberty granted by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The review order was unsustainable and was set aside; the appeal succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The Court held that review power cannot be exercised mechanically on the strength of liberty granted in another case, and that the statutory threshold for review must independently be met.

Ratio Decidendi: Liberty granted by a superior court in another matter does not override the statutory limits on review, and a subsequent change in law or later decision is not by itself a ground to reopen a final judgment unless the requirements of review jurisdiction are independently satisfied.

---