The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India confers a wide discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed by any court or tribunal. This extraordinary jurisdiction is not subject to statutory limitations, but its exercise is tempered by judicial restraint and well-settled principles. One of the recurring questions before the Court has been the maintainability of a second Special Leave Petition (SLP) when an earlier SLP against the same impugned order has been withdrawn unconditionally.
In a recent and significant ruling, the Supreme Court in Satheesh V.K. v. The Federal Bank Ltd. (2025 INSC 1140, decided on September 23, 2025) has emphatically held that a second SLP is not maintainable once the earlier SLP has been withdrawn without obtaining express liberty to re-file. The judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, relies heavily on established precedents and the principle of finality of litigation.
This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, tracing its background, key issues, arguments, relevant precedents, and the Court’s reasoning. It also evaluates the broader implications of this ruling on litigants, advocates, and the jurisprudence surrounding Article 136 of the Constitution.
Background of the Case
Factual Matrix
- The appellant, Satheesh V.K., had availed financial assistance from the respondent, Federal Bank Ltd., by creating an equitable mortgage over his properties situated in Kozhikode, Kerala.
- Upon default in repayment, the loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), and the Bank initiated proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
- Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court challenging the Bank’s action.
On October 1, 2024, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The appellant was required to pay ₹2 crores on or before October 30, 2024.
- The balance dues were to be cleared in 12 equal monthly instalments.
- Default in any instalment would entitle the Bank to proceed under SARFAESI.
- The appellant was granted liberty to seek a one-time settlement after making the initial payment.
Instead of complying with this order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court via SLP (C) No. 28259 of 2024. On November 28, 2024, the Supreme Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the petition without granting any liberty to re-approach.
Subsequently:
- The appellant filed a review petition before the Kerala High Court, which was dismissed on December 5, 2024.
- Thereafter, the appellant again approached the Supreme Court by filing two civil appeals (arising from fresh SLPs) on December 12, 2024, challenging both the original High Court order and the dismissal of the review petition.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether a second Special Leave Petition is maintainable after unconditional withdrawal of the first SLP filed against the same impugned order, without seeking liberty to re-approach the Court.
- Whether an appeal is maintainable against an order rejecting a review petition by the High Court under Order XLVII Rule 7(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Arguments Advanced
Appellant’s Arguments
Reliance on Precedents: The appellant placed reliance on S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar (2023) 7 SCC 740, where a reference had been made to a larger Bench regarding the maintainability of a second SLP in certain circumstances.
Extraordinary Power under Article 136: Citing Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (AIR 1955 SC 65), it was argued that Article 136 is a wide discretionary power meant to advance the cause of justice, and technicalities should not prevent adjudication on merits.
MSME Protection: On merits, it was argued that as the appellant’s company was a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME), it was entitled to benefits under the Central Government’s Notification dated May 29, 2015.
Respondent’s Arguments
Bar on Second SLP: The respondent strongly objected to the maintainability of the second SLP. It was contended that once the first SLP was withdrawn without liberty to re-file, the appellant lost the right to approach the Court again against the same order.
CPC Principle: Relying on Order XLVII Rule 7(1) CPC, the respondent argued that no appeal lies from an order rejecting a review.
Precedents Considered
The Court examined several landmark precedents, particularly:
- Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. (1999) 1 SCC 81: Held that withdrawal of an SLP without liberty precludes filing another SLP against the same order.Applied the principle underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC (withdrawal of suits) to SLPs.
- Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT (1987) 1 SCC 5: Withdrawal of a writ petition without liberty bars re-filing of another writ petition on the same cause.
- Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359: Clarified the doctrine of merger and held that dismissal of an SLP by a non-speaking order does not bar filing a review before the High Court.
- Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara SSK Ltd. (2019) 4 SCC 376: Reiterated Kunhayammed, holding that dismissal of an SLP without reasons does not bar review before the High Court.
- S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar (2023) 7 SCC 740: Referred the issue of second SLP maintainability to a larger Bench, but it was distinguishable from the present case.
Court’s Analysis
On the Second SLP
The Court noted that the appellant’s first SLP was withdrawn unconditionally after the Bench expressed reservations in entertaining it. No liberty was sought to file a fresh petition.
- Applying Upadhyay & Co. and Sarguja Transport Service, the Court held that withdrawal without liberty bars a litigant from reapproaching the Court with the same grievance.
- The Court emphasised that permitting such practice would encourage “bench hunting” and defeat the principle of finality in litigation.
- It invoked the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation).
On Appeal Against Review Rejection
- Referring to Order XLVII Rule 7(1) CPC, the Court held that no appeal lies against an order refusing review.
- A dismissal of review does not alter or merge with the original order; hence, the remedy is to challenge the original order, not the rejection of review.
On Appellant’s Reliance on Article 136
The Court rejected the contention that Article 136’s wide powers could override these limitations. It clarified that while Article 136 is indeed extraordinary, it cannot be used to grant multiple opportunities when a litigant voluntarily withdraws the first petition without reserving liberty.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals, holding:
- A second SLP is not maintainable after unconditional withdrawal of the first SLP against the same impugned order, unless specific liberty to re-file is obtained.
- No appeal lies from an order rejecting review under Order XLVII, Rule 7(1) of the CPC.
The Court concluded that entertaining the present appeals would be contrary to public policy and tantamount to reopening settled issues.
Conclusion
The decision in Satheesh V.K. v. Federal Bank Ltd. marks a significant clarification in the law governing Special Leave Petitions. By holding that a second SLP is barred after unconditional withdrawal of the first, the Supreme Court has aligned its procedural discipline with the principles of finality and public policy.
This ruling not only discourages litigation abuse but also ensures that the Supreme Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 is not trivialised by repetitive and strategic filings. For litigants and lawyers alike, the message is clear: once a petition is withdrawn without liberty, the doors of the Court on the same cause stand closed.
In essence, the judgment upholds the sanctity of judicial process, the finality of litigation, and the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be administered efficiently and decisively.