Second SLP Not Maintainable To Challenge Dismissal Of Review Petition That Was Filed Before High Court After First SLP Dismissal Without Liberty: Supreme Court

The Court clarified that although a party does not require liberty to seek review before the High Court after a dismissal simpliciter, the rejection of that review does not revive a right to invoke Article 136 afresh.

The Apex Court was hearing a challenge to the order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court rejecting a Review Petition. The earlier SLP preferred by the petitioner against the substantive judgment of the High Court had been dismissed by this Court through a non-speaking order, and later a miscellaneous application seeking recall of that dismissal had been withdrawn without securing liberty to file a fresh SLP.

A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, examined the statutory framework and precedents governing Article 136, the doctrine of merger, and review jurisdiction, and held: “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 petitioner was represented by Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate, while the respondents were represented by Kavin Gulati, Senior Advocate.

Background

The dispute traces back to a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in which certain directions were issued that aggrieved both the petitioner Bank and the respondent Association. The matter was carried in appeal, and the Division Bench allowed the Letters Patent Appeals filed by both sides, holding the writ petition to be not maintainable and dismissing it accordingly. This led to further proceedings before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court restored the LPA, directing the Division Bench to reconsider the matter in terms of the directions earlier issued. Pursuant to this restoration, the Division Bench decided the matter afresh and set aside the portion of the Single Judge’s order that had been challenged.

The petitioner Bank filed an SLP against the judgment, which was dismissed by a non-speaking order. The petitioner thereafter moved a miscellaneous application seeking recall of that dismissal order, which was dismissed while granting liberty only to pursue a review petition before the High Court. No liberty was granted to return to the Supreme Court after the conclusion of the review proceedings.

Acting on that liberty, the petitioner filed a Review Petition before the High Court. The Division Bench dismissed the review petition, and this dismissal formed the basis of the present Special Leave Petition, giving rise to the issue of maintainability before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court examined the precedents on the effect of dismissal of an SLP and the relationship between Article 136 and review jurisdiction. Referring to Kunhayammed, Khoday Distilleries, Upadhyay & Co., and T.K. David, the Court reiterated that the dismissal of an SLP without reasons does not bar review before the High Court. The Court stated that “the High Court is not deprived of its review jurisdiction merely because an SLP has been dismissed simpliciter.”

However, the Court emphasised that the permissibility of a review does not imply that a subsequent SLP is maintainable. Once a party has exhausted its remedy in review before the High Court, the Bench observed, a second approach to the Supreme Court is barred unless liberty to revive the matter was specifically granted. The Court observed that the earlier withdrawal order “did not contain any liberty to approach this Court again,” and the petitioner could not read into the order something that was not expressed.

Analysing Bussa Overseas, Satheesh V.K., and S. Narahari, the Court held that permitting successive SLPs would undermine the finality of proceedings, emphasising that repeated challenges to the same order undermine the principle of interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium.

The Bench further held that dismissal of a review does not merge the original order into the review judgment. Thus, the Bench held that the petitioner could not challenge either the review order or the original judgment before the Supreme Court.

Addressing the High Court’s reasoning in the impugned review, the Apex Court observed that while the High Court incorrectly felt inhibited by the earlier dismissal of the SLP, it nonetheless proceeded to consider the matter on merits and found no infirmity justifying review. Given the limited scope of review jurisdiction, the Court found this sufficient to sustain the dismissal, and therefore, no interference was warranted.

Conclusion

The Court held the Special Leave Petition to be not maintainable and dismissed it accordingly. It clarified that the earlier dismissal order had attained finality inter partes and that the subsequent dismissal of the review petition before the High Court did not confer any right to revive the matter before this Court.

Cause Title: Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. KCCB Pensioners Welfare Association & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1416)

Appearances

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, with Advocates Baldev Singh, Divyansh Thakur, Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Roopesh Singh Bhadauria, Anya Singh, Chitwan Godara, Abhik Chimni, Bimlesh Kumar Singh, AOR

Respondents: Senior Advocates Kavin Gulati & Shadan Farasat, with Advocates Avi Tandon, Meghna Tandon (AoR), Mohith S. Kumar, Dushyant Sharma, Ami Tandon, Nipun Saxena, Astha Sharma (AoR), Mantika Haryani, and others

Click here to read/download Judgment