The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and K.V. Viswanathan, has held that a second Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the same order is not maintainable if the first SLP was withdrawn unconditionally without obtaining the court’s permission to file a fresh one. The Court dismissed the appeals filed by a borrower against the Federal Bank, ruling that such a practice is contrary to public policy and the principle of finality in litigation.
Case Background
The case originated from a financial dispute between the appellant, Satheesh V.K., and the respondent, The Federal Bank Ltd. The appellant had defaulted on a loan, leading the bank to classify the account as a ‘Non-Performing Asset’ (NPA) and initiate recovery measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002.
Aggrieved by the bank’s actions, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. On October 1, 2024, the High Court disposed of the petition, directing the appellant to pay an initial amount of Rs. 2 crores by October 30, 2024, and the remaining outstanding amount of Rs. 7.77 crores in 12 equal monthly instalments.
The appellant challenged this order in the Supreme Court through an SLP. However, on November 28, 2024, the appellant’s counsel sought and was granted permission to withdraw the petition. The Supreme Court’s order noted, “Permission to withdraw is granted. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
Subsequently, the appellant filed a petition in the High Court seeking a review of its October 1 order, which was dismissed on December 5, 2024. Following this, the appellant filed two new civil appeals before the Supreme Court, one challenging the original High Court order of October 1 and the other challenging the dismissal of the review petition.
The judgment noted the “alacrity with which the appellant moved from court to court… without showing semblance of an inclination to repay the dues of the respondent and to buy time by resorting to technicalities.”
Arguments of the Parties
The respondent, represented by Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeals. He argued that since the appellant had withdrawn the initial SLP without obtaining liberty to file a fresh one, the subsequent challenge to the same order was barred. He also contended that under Order XLVII Rule 7(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), an appeal cannot be filed against an order that rejects a review petition.
The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Menon, countered that the issue of maintainability of a second SLP was pending before a larger bench, citing the case of S. Narahari and Others v. S.R. Kumar and Others. He invoked the extraordinary powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, as laid down in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, arguing that the court’s power must be exercised to advance justice over technical hurdles.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court framed the central question as whether a second SLP is maintainable against a judgment that was previously challenged in an SLP which was withdrawn unconditionally.
The bench distinguished the present case from S. Narahari, pointing out that in this case, the appellant had withdrawn the first SLP without seeking any liberty from the court to apply for a review or to approach the Supreme Court again.
The Court held that the case was squarely covered by the precedent set in Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. and Others, which established that the principle underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC is based on public policy and applies to SLPs under Article 136. This rule precludes a party from instituting a fresh suit on the same subject matter after abandoning or withdrawing a previous suit without the court’s permission.
The judgment quoted Upadhyay & Co.: “It is not a permissible practice to challenge the same order over again after withdrawing the special leave petition without obtaining permission of the court for withdrawing it with liberty to move for special leave again subsequently.”
The Court reasoned that allowing such a practice would enable litigants to indulge in bench-hunting and undermine the finality of judicial proceedings. It affirmed that this “rule of public policy” must apply to special leave petitions. The judgment stated, “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 Court also upheld the bar on appealing an order rejecting a review, explaining that such an order does not modify the original decree, and thus there is no merger of the original order with the review rejection order.
Regarding the precedents cited by the appellant, the Court found that the principles from Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala & Another and Khoday Distilleries Limited, which deal with the doctrine of merger after a non-speaking dismissal of an SLP, were not applicable to a case involving the unconditional withdrawal of an SLP.
Concluding its analysis, the Court invoked the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation). It held that a litigant who withdraws a challenge cannot be permitted to return to the same court to mount the self-same challenge again.
Based on these reasons, the Supreme Court upheld the respondent’s preliminary objections and dismissed the civil appeals as not maintainable.
