REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5280 OF 2006

Gangadhara Palo

..Appellant

versus

The Revenue Divisional Officer & Another

..Respondents

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned

judgment/order dated 28^th January, 2005 passed by the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.

By that order, the review petition as well as the

application for condonation of delay in filing the review

petition have been dismissed.

The delay was only of 71 days and, in our opinion, a

liberal view should have been taken by the High Court and

delay of 71 days in filing the review petition should have

been condoned and the review petition should have been

decided on merits. Hence, we condone the delay of 71 days

in filing the review petition before the High Court.

As regards the maintainability of the review

petition, Mr. Sanjay Kapur, learned counsel for the

respondent submitted that it was not maintainable because

against the main judgment of the High Court dated 19^th June,

2001 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant herein,

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5280 OF 2006

-2-

the appellant herein filed a special leave petition in this

Court which was dismissed on 17^th September, 2001.

The aforesaid order of this Court dismissing the

special leave petition simply states “The Special Leave

Petition is dismissed”. Thus, this order gives no reasons.

In support of his submission, learned counsel for the

respondent has relied upon a decision of this Court in the

case of K. Ajamouli vs. A.V.K.N. Swamy (2001) 5 SCC 37 and

has submitted that there is a distinction between a case

where the review petition was filed in the High Court

before the dismissal of the special leave petition by this

Court, and a case where the review petition was filed after

the dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court.

We regret, we cannot agree. In our opinion, it will

make no difference whether the review petition was filed in

the High Court before the dismissal of the special leave

petition or after the dismissal of the special leave

petition. The important question really is whether the

judgment of the High Court has merged into the judgment of

this Court by the doctrine of merger or not.

When this Court dismisses a special leave petition

by giving some reasons, however meagre ( it can be even of

just one sentence), there will be a merger of the judgment

of the High Court into the order of the Supreme Court

dismissing the special leave petition. According to the

doctrine of merger, the judgment of the lower court merges

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5280 OF 2006

-3-

into the judgment of the higher court. Hence, if some

reasons, however meagre, are given by this Court while

dismissing the special leave petition, then by the doctrine

of merger, the judgment of the High Court merges into the

judgment of this Court and after merger there is no

judgment of the High Court. Hence, obviously, there can be

no review of a judgment which does not even exist.

The situation is totally different where a special

leave petition is dismissed without giving any reasons

whatsoever. It is well settled that special leave under

Article 136 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary

remedy, and hence a special leave petition can be dismissed

for a variety of reasons and not necessarily on merits. We

cannot say what was in the mind of the Court while

dismissing the special leave petition without giving any

reasons. Hence, when a special leave petition is dismissed

without giving any reasons, there is no merger of the

judgment of the High Court with the order of this Court.

Hence, the judgment of the High Court can be reviewed since

it continues to exist, though the scope of the r