This Supreme Court judgement reaffirms that if a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is unconditionally withdrawn without seeking liberty to file a fresh one, a second SLP challenging the same order is not maintainable. This principle, drawn from Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, is grounded in public policy to prevent bench-hunting and ensure litigation finality. An appeal against an order merely dismissing a review petition is also not maintainable.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, Satheesh V.K., was a borrower who had defaulted on a loan from the Federal Bank, leading the bank to classify the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and initiate recovery under the SARFAESI Act. Challenging this action, Satheesh filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court. On October 1, 2024, the High Court disposed of the petition with a directive for him to pay a substantial upfront amount followed by monthly instalments, failing which the bank could proceed with recovery. Unsatisfied, Satheesh filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. However, after a brief hearing where the Court expressed reservations, his counsel sought and was granted permission to withdraw the SLP, which was then dismissed as withdrawn on November 28, 2024. Subsequently, Satheesh filed a review petition before the High Court, which was dismissed on December 5, 2024. He then returned to the Supreme Court, filing two fresh civil appeals: one challenging the original High Court order and the other challenging the dismissal of his review petition. The core legal dispute before the Supreme Court was the maintainability of these appeals after the unconditional withdrawal of the first SLP.
Procedural History:
The case originated with a writ petition filed by the appellant, Satheesh V.K., before the Kerala High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the bank’s SARFAESI recovery actions. The High Court disposed of the petition on October 1, 2024, with a specific repayment directive. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. However, during a hearing on November 28, 2024, upon sensing the Court’s disinclination to entertain it, the appellant’s counsel withdrew the SLP, and it was dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant then filed a review petition before the Kerala High Court, which was dismissed on December 5, 2024. Consequently, the appellant filed the present civil appeals before the Supreme Court on December 12, 2024—one against the original High Court order and another against the order dismissing the review petition—leading to the instant judgement on their maintainability.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Reins In High Court’s Review Power in Judicial Recruitment Case
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made crucial observations on the maintainability of litigation. It firmly held that a party who unconditionally withdraws a Special Leave Petition (SLP) without seeking liberty to file a fresh one is precluded from challenging the same order again. This principle, drawn from Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, is a rule of public policy aimed at preventing bench-hunting and ensuring finality to litigation. The Court observed that the appellant’s conduct of moving from court to court without showing an inclination to repay the dues was a factor to be considered. It distinguished the precedents relied upon by the appellant and reaffirmed the authority of its earlier judgement in Upadhyay & Co., concluding that entertaining a second SLP in such circumstances would be contrary to public policy and tantamount to sitting in appeal over its own prior order.
Final Decision & Judgement:
Based on its observations, the Supreme Court upheld the respondent bank’s preliminary objections on maintainability. The Court concluded that the civil appeals were not legally permissible. Consequently, it dismissed both appeals, thereby barring the appellant from re-agitating the challenge against the High Court’s original order and the subsequent review dismissal order. The Court held that the appellant, having voluntarily withdrawn his first Special Leave Petition without securing liberty to file a fresh one, forfeited his right to a second bite at the cherry. The connected applications, if any, were also closed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Satheesh V.K. vs The Federal Bank Ltd. Citation: 2025 INSC 1140 Appeal Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 11752-11753 of 2025 Date of Judgement: September 23, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K.V. Viswanathan