Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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