SC Closes Door on Repeat SLPs: Says ‘Finality of Litigation Must Be Respected'

The Supreme Court on September 23, 2025, held that a party cannot file a second special leave petition (SLP) if they have already withdrawn an earlier SLP without seeking permission to file a fresh one.

Court further clarified that if such a party later seeks a review before the same court whose order was challenged in the withdrawn SLP, and that review is dismissed, they cannot challenge either the review order or the original order.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and K V Vishwanathan dismissed civil appeals filed by Satheesh V K by allowing a preliminary objection raised by the Federal Bank Ltd.

The appellant faced proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act after his loan was declared a non-performing asset. The bank claimed Rs 7,77,41,321 as the total outstanding amount.

The appellant approached the Kerala High Court, which disposed of his writ petition on October 1, 2024, by directing him to pay Rs two crore by October 30, 2024, and the remaining amoun,t along with future interest, in 12 equal monthly instalments.

The appellant challenged the October 1, 2024, order by filing a special leave petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn on November 28, 2024.

He then again approached the High Court for review of the order of October 1, 2024. This was dismissed on December 5, 2024.

The appellant then filed two petitions, one against the order of October 1, 2024, and another against the dismissal of the review petition.

Having examined the matter, the bench said, "We are inclined to the view that the nature of power exercisable by this court under Article 136, as elaborately laid down there, would apply in the first round when a judgment and order is challenged and not when the challenge to the same judgment and order is withdrawn in the first round and a second bite at the cherry is attempted without having obtained the permission of the court to re-approach it".

Court said that allowing a special leave petition in such cases would go against public policy and would, in effect, amount to reviewing its own earlier order, which had already 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 bench added.

During the proceedings, the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appellant had no right in law to approach the apex court once again after withdrawing the initial challenge. Also, in view of Order XLVII Rule 7 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, there can be no appeal against an order refusing review, the bank argued.

The appellant, on the opposite, cited the decision of a coordinate bench of the court in S. Narahari and Others v. S.R. Kumar and Others (2023). It was pointed out that a reference was made for the constitution of a larger bench to deliberate and adjudicate the issue as to whether a second special leave petition would be maintainable against an order which was previously challenged in a special leave petition but the challenge had either been withdrawn or spurned.

Court here examined whether a special leave petition (second in the series) would be maintainable against a judgment and order which was earlier challenged before the court but such challenge turned out to be abortive because the special leave petition before this court is either (i) withdrawn unconditionally, or (ii) dismissed on merits by a brief order not containing reasons, or (iii) withdrawn with liberty to apply for review but without the liberty to approach this court once again, should the review too fail.

In the case, the court noted, having sensed that the co-ordinate bench was not inclined to entertain the special leave petition, the appellant did not invite an order of dismissal thereof on merits but went away content with permission to withdraw.

"Neither permission was sought to apply for review nor was any window kept open by this court to permit the appellant to approach it once again mounting a challenge to the same order. This is a plain and simple case where the law laid down in the previous century by a co-ordinate bench in its decision in Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. and Others (1999) would squarely apply,'' the bench said.

Court held the position in law seemed to be this - 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.

Court also emphasised that no appeal lies from an order rejecting a petition for review, as it is clear from the plain language of Order XLVII Rule 7(1), CPC.

Whenever a party aggrieved by a decree or order seeks a review thereof based on parameters indicated in Section 114 read with Order XLVII, CPC and the application ultimately fails, the decree or order under review does not suffer any change. It remains intact. In such an eventuality, there is no merger of the decree or order under review in the order of rejection of the review because such rejection does not bring about any alteration or modification of the decree or order; rather, it results in an affirmance of the decree or order, the bench pointed out.

Since there is no question of any merger, the party aggrieved by the rejection of the review petition has to challenge the decree or order, as the case may be, and not the order of rejection of the review petition, court added.

On the contrary, the bench said, if the petition for review is allowed and the suit or proceedings is placed for rehearing, Rule 7(1) permits the party aggrieved to immediately object to the order allowing the review or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit, i.e., after rehearing of the matter in dispute.

Case Title: Satheesh V K Vs The Federal Bank Ltd

Judgment Date: September 23, 2025

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and K V Vishwanathan