Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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