A party cannot re-litigate previously decided matters in a Special Leave Petition unless specific leave is granted, reinforcing the principle of finality in judicial decisions.

JUDGMENT :

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH & PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.

Heard learned senior counsel Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Kavin Gulati and Mr. Shadan Farasat, for their respective parties, alongwith learned counsel assisting them.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:

2. At the outset, Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1, raised the issue of non-maintainability of the instant Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Constitution’). The parties have, thus, addressed us on the same.

RESPONDENT NO.1’S CONTENTIONS:

3. Mr. Gulati, learned senior counsel, submitted that the present petition is not maintainable for the reason that the original Judgment dated 15.05.2012 in CWP No.1679/2010 [2012:HHC:4682], as passed by the learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’), as upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court on 26.02.2024 in LPA No.316/2012 [2014:HHC:11898-DB], was further challenged before this Court by the petitioner in SLP (C) No.16819/2024. But the said challenge was dismissed by Order dated 23.09.2024 in SLP (C) No.16819/2024. It was further submitted that later, a Miscellaneous Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘MA’) Diary No.51429/2024 was filed before this Court for recall of the order of dismissal, which was also withdrawn by the petitioner on 20.12.2024. However, such withdrawal was with liberty to file a review petition before the High Court. It was submitted that in the said Order (of withdrawal of the MA with the liberty supra), no liberty was granted to the petitioner to move this Court again, in case the petitioner did not succeed in/was aggrieved by the order/s to be passed in the review petition. Further, it was submitted that even otherwise, once this Court had upheld, by the Order dated 23.09.2024 supra, the original Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench on merits in the same case between the same parties, such Judgment, being in personam, could not be opened up for fresh consideration de novo, as was being attempted by the petitioner in the present proceeding. He cited T K David v Kuruppampady Service Cooperative Bank Limited , (2020) 9 SCC 92 for the proposition that the present petition was not maintainable and referred to Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited v Registrar, Cooperative Societies , (2022) 4 SCC 363 on the merits of the case, without prejudice to his objection on maintainability. It was prayed that the petition deserved dismissal.

PETITIONER’S RESPONSE:

4. Per contra, Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the contentions urged by respondent no.1 are misconceived. It was submitted that nowhere, along the whole chain, any Court, be it the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court, or even this Court, had considered the issue(s) raised, both on facts and in law, by the petitioner. Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel, pointedly urged that, at the very least, the petitioner was, and is, duly entitled to one such serious consideration on merits. He further contended that the position in law is clear that inasmuch as even if a matter is dismissed by this Court without any adjudication on merits, a review would lie before the Court whose judgment/order was under challenge in this Court. For such proposition, he placed reliance on Manisha Nimesh Mehta v Board of Directors, Represen