ORDER

2. We express our inability to agree with the observations made by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India vs. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. [RP(C) No.359 of 2023 in CA No.5783 of 2022] disposed of in paragraph 7 thereof which reads as under:

3. This is in view of an earlier judgment of another three-Judge Bench of this Court in Government of NCT of Delhi vs. KL Rathi Steels Limited reported in (2024) 7 SCC 315 disposed of on 17.05.2024. This decision arose on a difference of opinion between a Bench of two Judges in the said case the three-Judge Bench agreed with the view of the companion Judge (Nagarathna, J.) of the two Judge Bench and recorded its inability to be at ad idem with the Hon’ble Presiding Judge. This was on the basis of the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “Code”). For ease of reference, the said Provision is extracted as under:

“1. Application for review of judgment.- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(b) by a decree or O