New Delhi, July 29: The Supreme Court has recently challenged the view that filing a fresh Special Leave Petition (SLP). This remains an option if an SLP was previously dismissed through a non-speaking order or withdrawal without leave. This view had been previously taken by a Division Bench in the case of S. Narahari And Ors. v. S.R. Kumar And Ors.
In its latest order, the Supreme Court relied on Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This pertains to the withdrawal of suits. The Bench comprised Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra. They emphasised that a party cannot reinitiate proceedings after withdrawing a plea without obtaining the court’s leave.
“A party having withdrawn the proceedings before a competent Court and not having obtained leave of such Court to file a fresh proceeding ought not to be permitted to have a second bite at the cherry,” the Bench remarked.
Given that the issue in Narahari’s case was referred to a larger bench, and the current case was also heard by a two-judge bench, the matter was adjourned indefinitely. The Court provided liberty to mention the SLP for relisting after the larger bench renders its decision.
Narahari Case
In the Narahari case, the Court considered a judgement by a three-judge bench in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., which dealt with whether a review petition in the High Court is maintainable after an SLP on the same issue has been dismissed. The three-judge bench concluded that a review in the High Court is still valid even after the SLP’s dismissal, stating that a non-speaking dismissal of an SLP does not invoke the doctrine of merger.
Based on this, the Court in Narahari observed that a dismissal of an SLP by a non-speaking order does not constitute law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, nor does it invoke res judicata. Therefore, the remedy of filing a fresh SLP would still be available. It was also noted that if a review in the High Court is allowed post-SLP dismissal, the same rationale should extend to filing a subsequent SLP.
However, the Division Bench acknowledged the potential for an overwhelming influx of litigation if this interpretation were upheld. This would necessitate reasons for every SLP dismissal. The Court directed the Registry to place the matter before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for a larger bench.
This move aims to provide clarity and put an end to ambiguities. It is regarding the filing of fresh SLPs after withdrawal without leave. This potentially impacts the judicial process and litigation landscape significantly.
