Second Special Leave Petition Not Maintainable If First SLP Against Same Order Was Withdrawn Unconditionally : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (Sep.23) held that once a Special Leave Petition (SLP) is withdrawn unconditionally, a second SLP challenging the same order is not maintainable. The Court further clarified that if a review against the impugned order is dismissed, neither the dismissal of the review nor the original order can thereafter be challenged.

“a second special leave petition would not be maintainable at the instance of a party, who elects not to proceed with the challenge laid by him in an earlier special leave petition and withdraws such petition without obtaining leave to file a fresh special leave petition; if such party applies for a review before the court from whose order the special leave petition was initially carried and the review fails, then he can neither challenge the order rejecting the review nor the order of which review was sought.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice KV Viswanathan heard the case arising out of the Kerala High Court, which, had directed the Appellant-Satheesh to repay loan dues in instalments. Challenging this, he approached the Supreme Court by way of SLP in 2024. However, on November 28, 2024, when the Court expressed doubts on merits, counsel withdrew the petition unconditionally, without seeking liberty to file afresh.

The Appellant then filed a review petition in the High Court, which was dismissed. He subsequently filed two fresh SLPs, i.e., one against the original High Court order and another against the order rejecting the review.

These SLPs came up before the Supreme Court in the present appeals.

Drawing reference from Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, the judgment authored by Justice Datta held that once a litigant withdraws a petition without liberty, they are precluded from filing a fresh one on the same cause of action. The Court relied on Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. (1999), which explicitly extended this CPC principle to SLPs. It held that a party that withdraws an SLP without obtaining liberty to file a fresh one cannot subsequently challenge the same order again via a new SLP.

“Upadhyay & Co. (supra), which precedes Kunhayammed (supra) in point of time, is still the law holding the field declaring in no certain terms that the principle flowing from Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC is also applicable to special leave petitions presented before this Court.”, the court said.

The Court emphasized the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation). Entertaining a second SLP in such circumstances would violate this principle and amount to sitting in appeal over the Court's own earlier order, which had attained finality upon withdrawal.

“We have no doubt that entertaining a special leave petition in a case of the present nature would be contrary to public policy and can even tantamount to sitting in appeal over the previous order of this Court which has attained finality. The maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation) would apply in all fours when it is found that proceedings challenging an order were not carried forward by withdrawing the special leave petition and the litigant has returned to the same court after some time mounting a challenge to the self-same order which was earlier under challenge and such challenge had not been pursued. This is a course of action which cannot be justified either in principle or precept.”, the court said.

The Court further held that an appeal against the dismissal of a review petition was not maintainable in light of Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC, which bars an appeal against an order rejecting review. Such dismissal, the Court explained, does not alter the original decree but merely affirms it, and therefore cannot be independently challenged.

Though the petitioner stated that the question regarding maintainability of second SLP challenging review order was referred to a larger bench in S Narahari and Ors. v. SR Kumar and Or, the bench distinguished the said case, noting that there, liberty was sought to file review. However, in this case, no such liberty was sought.

The bench also referred to the recent judgment in NF Railway Vending and Catering Contractors Association Lumding Division v. Union of India & Ors.

The appellant relied on Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (2019), which recognized maintainability of review petitions despite dismissal of SLPs by non-speaking orders. However, the Court clarified that those cases dealt with dismissals, not voluntary withdrawals. Here, no liberty had been granted to re-approach the Court.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: SATHEESH V.K. VERSUS THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 934

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. M. K. S. Menon, Adv. Ms. Usha Nandini V., AOR Mr. Shashank Menon, Adv. Mr. John Thomas Arakal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR Mr. Saket Jee, Adv. Mr. Santhosh Kumar Kolkundra, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar Puvvala, Adv. Ms. Ankita Kutthi, Adv.