The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on procedural law, has dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP), holding that filing a second SLP challenging a High Court order, against which a previous SLP has already been dismissed, is an “abuse of process of Court.” A bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice N.V. Anjaria concluded that such an action amounts to re-litigation and undermines the fundamental legal principle of finality in litigation.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by Vasantalata Kom Vimalanand Mirjankar challenging a judgment from the Karnataka High Court at Dharwad dated January 30, 2014, and a subsequent order dismissing a review petition dated February 18, 2025.
Case Background
The petitioner initially challenged the Karnataka High Court’s judgment of January 30, 2014, by filing SLP(C) 12831/2014 before the Supreme Court. On July 1, 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed this petition with the order: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No ground for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petition is dismissed.”
Following this dismissal, the petitioner filed a review petition (RP No. 100119/2014) before the High Court, which was also dismissed on February 18, 2025. The present Special Leave Petition (Diary No(s). 36933/2025) was filed challenging both the original High Court judgment and the order dismissing the review petition.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Kiran Suri, argued that the High Court had erred in dismissing the review petition solely on the ground that the Supreme Court had already declined to interfere. She contended that a review was maintainable and cited the Supreme Court’s judgments in Kunhayammed and Ors. vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 359 and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and Ors. vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. Kollegal, (2019) 4 SCC 376.
Furthermore, she submitted that the core issue of the maintainability of a second SLP after a previous one was dismissed had been referred to a larger bench by the Supreme Court in the case of S. Narahari and Ors. vs. S.R. Kumar and Ors., (2023) 7 SCC 740.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court bench meticulously analyzed the petitioner’s contentions but found them to be without merit. The Court first noted that the initial SLP was dismissed on merits. It observed that entertaining the current petition against the same order would be improper. “This Court is of the view that entertaining the present SLP qua the order dated 30th January 2014 would amount to sitting in appeal over the order dated 1st July 2014 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,” the bench stated.
The Court distinguished the S. Narahari case, pointing out that the SLP in that matter was “dismissed as withdrawn and not dismissed” on merits.
Addressing the reliance on the Kunhayammed and Khoday Distilleries judgments, the Court clarified their scope, stating, “The aforesaid judgments only state that a review petition is maintainable before the High Court after dismissal of the SLP by a non-speaking order.” Critically, the bench added that these judgments nowhere state that the Petitioner is entitled to a “‘second bite at the cherry’ by filing a subsequent SLP challenging the order of the High Court against which an SLP has already been dismissed.”
The Court also highlighted that the petitioner’s attempt to challenge the main judgment again was a way to bypass the statutory bar under Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which prohibits an appeal against an order dismissing a review petition.
Citing the three-judge bench decision in T.K. David vs. Kuruppampady Service Cooperative Bank Limited & Ors., (2020) 9 SCC 92, the Court reiterated that once the main judgment of the High Court becomes final, no relief can be granted in an SLP filed against an order rejecting a review of that judgment.
Finally, the bench declined to tag the matter with the S. Narahari reference, stating that the facts were not pari materia. It firmly asserted that a pending reference to a larger bench does not suspend the application of existing binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution.
The Decision
In its concluding remarks, the Court delivered a strong message against re-litigation. “This Court is of the opinion that the present SLP against main order dated 30th January, 2014 is an abuse of process of Court as it amounts to re-litigation and to entertain the present SLP would amount to challenging one of the foundation pillars of Rule of law namely finality in litigation,” the Court held.
Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
