The Supreme Court held that a second Special Leave Petition challenging the same judgment is not maintainable after an earlier SLP was dismissed and a subsequent recall petition was withdrawn without liberty to approach the Court again. The principle of finality in litigation bars re-agitating the same issue inter-partes, even if questions of law are kept open.
Facts Of The Case:
The litigation originated from a judgment dated May 15, 2012, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in CWP No.1679/2010, concerning pensionary benefits payable by the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited to its retirees. This judgment was subsequently upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court on February 26, 2024, in LPA No.316/2012. The Bank challenged this Division Bench judgment before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.16819/2024, which was dismissed on September 23, 2024, with the Court finding no occasion to interfere while keeping the question of law open. Thereafter, the Bank filed Miscellaneous Application Diary No.51429/2024 seeking recall of the dismissal order, which was withdrawn on December 20, 2024, with liberty granted to file a review petition before the High Court. Notably, no liberty was sought or granted to approach the Supreme Court again if the review failed. Pursuant to this liberty, the Bank filed Review Petition No.18/2025 before the High Court, which was dismissed on April 11, 2025. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the review petition, the Bank filed the present SLP, marking the third occasion the matter had reached the Supreme Court. The Bank raised concerns about financial viability, claiming the liability would affect approximately 141 pensioners and 45 spouses, with an estimated financial burden of INR 250 crores. The Pensioners Welfare Association, as respondent No.1, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this subsequent SLP.
Procedural History:
The matter originated from CWP No.1679/2010 decided by a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court on May 15, 2012. Both the petitioner-Bank and respondent No.1 filed appeals before the Division Bench. On September 3, 2014, the Division Bench allowed both Letters Patent Appeals and dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. This led to Civil Appeal No.5251/2022 before the Supreme Court, which on August 12, 2022, set aside the Division Bench’s order and restored only LPA No.316/2012 to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. Pursuant thereto, the Division Bench on February 26, 2024, allowed LPA No.316/2012, partly modifying the Single Judge’s order. The petitioner-Bank challenged this before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.16819/2024, which was dismissed on September 23, 2024, with the question of law kept open. The Bank then filed MA Diary No.51429/2024 seeking recall of the dismissal order, which was withdrawn on December 20, 2024, with liberty to approach the High Court in review. The High Court dismissed Review Petition No.18/2025 on April 11, 2025. The present SLP was filed challenging the review dismissal order, marking the third time the matter reached the Supreme Court.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court: High Court Approval Must for Withdrawing Cases Against MPs and MLAs
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court meticulously examined the preliminary objection regarding maintainability, observing that the matter had traveled to the Court for the third time. The Court noted that the original SLP challenging the Division Bench judgment was dismissed on September 23, 2024, and the subsequent MA seeking recall was withdrawn on December 20, 2024, with liberty granted only to approach the High Court in review, not to file a fresh SLP. The Court observed that the petitioner had not obtained any liberty to approach the Supreme Court again should the review fail. Relying on the principle that no appeal lies from an order rejecting a review petition under Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC, the Court observed that entertaining a second SLP would be contrary to public policy and the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation). The Court observed that the dismissal of the review petition did not alter or modify the original judgment under review; rather, it resulted in an affirmation thereof. Consequently, the Court observed that the aggrieved party must challenge the original decree or order, not the order rejecting the review petition. The Court further observed that while a review petition is maintainable after dismissal simpliciter of an SLP, a subsequent SLP challenging the same judgment after unsuccessful review, without specific liberty from this Court, is not permissible. The Court observed that this would amount to re-litigation and an abuse of the process of law.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court accepted the preliminary objection raised by respondent No.1 and dismissed the Special Leave Petition as not maintainable. The Court held that a second SLP challenging the same judgment, after an earlier SLP had been dismissed and a recall petition withdrawn without liberty to approach the Court again, is barred by principles of finality in litigation. The Court found that entertaining such a petition would be contrary to public policy and amount to an abuse of the process of law. While dismissing the petition, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to limit the liability against the petitioner-Bank to only 141 pensioners and 45 spouses, totaling 186 persons, in the peculiar facts of the case. The Court clarified that this direction was made to prevent further litigation and would not constitute a binding precedent, while its interpretation of law regarding maintainability remained unaffected. The Court also allowed pending interlocutory applications for exemption from filing official translations and other formal reliefs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association (Regd.) & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 1416 Civil Appeal No.: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.15870/2025 Date of Judgment: December 3, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Download The Judgement Here