O R D E R

PER HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J)

Heard learned counsel for the review applicants on delay condonation application and perused the records.

2. Through MA No. 2927 of 2025, review applicants have prayed for delay condonation in filing of the review application.

3. Learned counsel for the review applicants relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ-A No. 5564 of 2023-Surendra Kumar vs. Union of India and other whereby the Hon’ble High Court has held that Tribunal can condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if it is satisfied that sufficient cause for not preferring an application within the time has been supplemented.

Learned counsel for the review applicants argued that Tribunal created under the Administrative Tribunals Act-1985 is not covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of The Property Company (P) Ltd. vs. Rohinten Daddy Mazda dated 07th January, 2026.

Further submitted that this Tribunal sometimes holds the power of Civil Court, hence, power to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is vested in it.

Further contended that Principal Bench of this Tribunal has issued a circular dated 05.03.2026 (Annexure No. 2, page-19 of the written arguments) wherein also provision for delay condonation has been provided.

4. Before dealing with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the review applicants, we deem it appropriate to refer the relevant provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act-1985.

“Section 3- Definitions.

(a)- .......

(f)- „Central Administrative Tribunal‟ means the Administrative Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of Section 4.”

“Section 22. Procedure and powers of Tribunals –

(1) A Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules made by the Central Government, the Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its inquiry and deciding whether to sit in public or in private.

(2) A Tribunal shall decide every application made to it as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily every application shall be decided on a perusal of documents and written representations and [after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced].

(3) A Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of [discharging its functions under this Act], the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely :-

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

(c) receiving evidence of affidavits;

(d) subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office;

(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;

(f) reviewing its decisions;

(g) dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex- parte;

(h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order passed by it ex-parte ; and

(i) any other matter which may be prescribed by the Central Government.

5. From the aforesaid provisions, it is manifest that this Tribunal has been established under Administrative Tribunals Act-1985 and this Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, however, under sub-section 3 of Section 22, this Tribunal has the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure-1908 while trying a suit. This includes the power to review its decision. Thus, it is evident that this Tribunal has power to review its decision as the Civil Court while trying