S. Narahari and Ors. vs S.R. Kumar and Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

5 July 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 4289-4290 of 2023

Bench

Krishna Murari, Sanjay Karol

Citation

[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1010 : 2023 INSC 604

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLVII r. 7 – Constitution Of India – Art. 141 – Whether liberty granted by Supreme Court to approach the High Court in review, automatically places the said matter in the escalation matrix, and makes the remedy of Special Leave Petition available again – Held: It is necessary for the same to be adjudicated and deliberated upon by a larger bench of the Supreme Court.

Referring the matter to the larger Bench, the Court

HELD: 1. If a dismissal of Special Leave Petition by way of a nonspeaking order is not considered law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the same also cannot be considered as res judicata, and therefore, in every such dismissal, even in cases where the dismissal is by way of a withdrawal, the remedy of filing a fresh Special Leave Petition would still persist. Further, if on the said reasoning, a remedy to file a review in the High Court is allowed, then the same reasoning cannot arbitrarily exclude the filing of a subsequent Special Leave Petition. [Para 39] [1019-F-G]

2. This Court is aware of the fact that such an interpretation, if expanded beyond the specific scope of filing a review in the High Court is allowed, it would open the floodgates of litigation, and would essentially mean that every dismissal of Special Leave Petition must be accompanied with reasons declaring the same. [Para 40][1020-A-B]

3. Therefore, to put a quietus to such an issue, it is necessary for the same to be adjudicated and deliberated upon by a larger bench of this Court. [Para 41][1020-C]

Sandhya Educational Society v. Union Of India (2014)

7 SCC 701; Vinod Kapoor v. State Of Goa (2012) 7 SCC 701; Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd (2019) 4 SCC 376 : [2019] 3 SCR 411; Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538 – referred to.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA MURARI, J. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The present appeals are directed against the impugned order and judgment dated 20.12.2019 in RFA No. 392 of 2012 (DEC) and impugned judgment and order dated 15.07.2022 in Review Petition No. 365 of 2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”), whereby, both, the Appeal and the review preferred by the appellants herein were dismissed. 4. The relevant facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeals, for the sake of convenience,

View Subscription Plans →