The Supreme Court reiterated that once a Special Leave Petition is dismissed without liberty to re-approach, a second SLP on the same judgment is not maintainable. Rejection of a subsequent High Court review does not revive the right under Article 136.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has reiterated that once a Special Leave Petition has been dismissed without granting liberty to re-approach, a second SLP challenging the same judgment is not maintainable, even if a subsequent review petition before the High Court has also been rejected.
The Court clarified that while a party may file a review petition in the High Court after a simple dismissal of an SLP, the failure of that review does not confer a fresh right to invoke Article 136 again.
The matter arose from a challenge to a Himachal Pradesh High Court order rejecting a Review Petition. Earlier, the petitioner’s SLP against the substantive High Court judgment had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court through a non-speaking order, and a later application seeking recall of that dismissal was withdrawn without obtaining permission to file another SLP.
A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was considering an appeal against the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision dismissing a Review Petition. Earlier, the petitioner’s Special Leave Petition challenging the main High Court judgment had already been rejected by the Supreme Court through a non-speaking order.
Subsequently, a miscellaneous application filed to recall that dismissal was also withdrawn, without the petitioner obtaining permission to file another SLP.
Background of the Case
The controversy originated from a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in which certain directions were issued that dissatisfied both the petitioner Bank and the respondent Association. Both sides challenged this decision through Letters Patent Appeals, and the Division Bench ultimately allowed the appeals, holding the writ petition itself to be non-maintainable and dismissing it.
This resulted in the matter being taken to the Supreme Court. The Apex Court subsequently restored the Letters Patent Appeal, directing the Division Bench to reconsider the issue in accordance with its earlier observations. Following this remand, the Division Bench re-examined the case and annulled the portion of the Single Judge’s decision that had been questioned.
The petitioner Bank then approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition, which came to be dismissed through a non-speaking order. The Bank thereafter filed a miscellaneous application seeking recall of that dismissal, but the Court declined relief, granting liberty only to pursue a review before the High Court.
Significantly, no permission was granted to return to the Supreme Court after the review proceedings. Relying on the liberty granted, the petitioner filed a Review Petition before the High Court, which was dismissed by the Division Bench.
This dismissal was then challenged before the Supreme Court through the present Special Leave Petition, giving rise to the question of its maintainability.
Also Read: How SOP in Filing SLP Paper Books Benefits Legal Proceedings| Supreme Court
Senior Advocate Mr. Kavin Gulati argued for the respondent that the present petition is not maintainable because the original judgment dated 15.05.2012 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court affirmed by the Division Bench on 26.02.2024 had already been challenged by the petitioner before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.16819/2024, which was dismissed on 23.09.2024.
He further pointed out that although the petitioner subsequently filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of that dismissal, the application was later withdrawn on 20.12.2024, with liberty granted only to pursue a review petition before the High Court. Importantly, no permission was granted to approach the Supreme Court again after the review.
He submitted that once the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s judgment between the same parties, the decision being ‘in personam‘ could not be reopened for fresh examination, as the petitioner was now attempting.
Relying on T.K. David v. Kuruppampady Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. (2020) 9 SCC 92, he contended that the present petition is barred, and also referred to Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies (2022) 4 SCC 363 on the merits, while maintaining his objection on maintainability. He therefore urged dismissal of the petition.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Mr. Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the objections raised by the respondent were unfounded. He submitted that at no stage before the Single Judge, the Division Bench, or even the Supreme Court had the petitioner’s factual and legal contentions been examined on merits. According to him, the petitioner was at least entitled to one meaningful adjudication on the substantive issues.
He further contended that even when an SLP is dismissed without a detailed consideration, the law still permits a review before the High Court whose decision was challenged. In support, he relied on Manisha Nimesh Mehta v. ICICI Bank (2024) 9 SCC 573, and asserted that the precedent in T.K. David did not apply to the present case.
Issues Involved:
- Whether second SLP is maintainable or not to challenge dismissal of Review Petition that was filed before High Court after First SLP dismissal without liberty?
A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra analysed the legal scheme under Article 136, along with the principles of merger and review jurisdiction.
After considering the applicable precedents, the Court observed that while a party may seek review before the High Court even after a non-speaking dismissal of an SLP, that right does not extend to filing another SLP unless expressly permitted.
The Bench stated:
“There is no doubt that a party does not require any liberty to move in review before the High Court after dismissal simpliciter of an SLP by a non-speaking Order of this Court. However, if the High Court refuses to exercise review jurisdiction, to our mind, it would not be just and proper to permit the same party to approach this Court again, in the absence of specific liberty having been granted by this Court”.
The Court clarified,
“The High Court is not deprived of its review jurisdiction merely because an SLP has been dismissed simpliciter.”
At the same time, it stressed that the availability of review does not automatically translate into a right to file another SLP thereafter. Once a litigant has already pursued review before the High Court and failed, the Bench held that a second challenge before the Supreme Court is impermissible unless explicit liberty to return was granted.
The Court noted that the withdrawal order ‘did not contain any liberty to approach this Court again‘. therefore, the petitioner could not infer a right that had not been expressly conferred.
After examining the precedents in Bussa Overseas, Satheesh V.K., and S. Narahari, the Court concluded that allowing repeated SLPs would erode the principle of finality in litigation, highlighting that successive challenges run contrary to the doctrine of interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium.
The Bench further clarified that dismissal of a review petition does not lead to the merger of the original order with the review judgment. Consequently, the petitioner was barred from questioning either the review decision or the original judgment before the Supreme Court.
With regard to the High Court’s approach in the review proceedings, the Supreme Court observed that although the High Court unnecessarily felt constrained by the earlier SLP dismissal, it nevertheless examined the case on merits and found no basis to entertain review.
Given the inherently narrow scope of review jurisdiction, the Supreme Court held that this reasoning was adequate to uphold the dismissal, and therefore, no interference was required.
Final Judgment:
The Court ruled that the Special Leave Petition was not maintainable and dismissed it. It emphasized that the earlier dismissal order had become final between the parties, and the later rejection of the review petition by the High Court did not create any entitlement to reopen the matter before this Court.
Case Title: Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. KCCB Pensioners Welfare Association & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1416)
Read Attachment: