Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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