Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

NO APPEAL BY WAY OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CAN BE FILED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED IN REVIEW: SUPREME COURT

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has addressed the issue of maintainability of a Special Leave Petition (Civil) against an order passed in review. The judgment, delivered by Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, provides crucial insights into the interpretation of Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The case before the apex court involved an appeal against an order and judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka. The appellants sought to challenge the original order as well as the subsequent order passed in review. The respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Special Leave Petition against an order passed in review is not permissible under the applicable rules.

The Court carefully examined the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 7 and agreed with the respondents' contention. The rule expressly states that no appeal by way of Special Leave Petition can be filed against an order passed in review. However, the appellants contended that the liberty granted by the Supreme Court to approach the High Court in review provided an avenue for filing a subsequent Special Leave Petition.

To resolve the conflicting viewpoints, the judges delved into relevant case law. They noted a potential inconsistency in the existing precedents and concluded that the issue of maintainability needed to be decided by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. Recognizing the importance of settling the matter, the Court proposed placing the case before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of a larger bench.

The judgment also explored the doctrine of merger concerning the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by way of a nonspeaking order. It observed that such a dismissal does not attract the doctrine of merger and is not considered as law under Article 141 of the Constitution. This finding implies that the dismissal without reasons does not have the effect of res judicata, allowing the possibility of filing a fresh Special Leave Petition.

While acknowledging the potential consequences of a broader interpretation, the Court emphasized the need for reasons in dismissals to avoid opening the floodgates of litigation. Therefore, it deemed it crucial to refer the issue of maintainability to a larger bench for a definitive decision.

Date of Decision: 5th July, 2023

NARAHARI & ORS.   vs S.R. KUMAR & ORS.       

Latest Legal News