Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Third Party Review of Writ Petitions - Main Points and Insights
Scope and Nature of Third Party Review: Review petitions can be filed by third parties who were not original parties to the writ petition, often by those affected indirectly or by interveners. Such reviews are permissible under specific circumstances, especially where errors of law or fact are alleged, but require adherence to procedural rules.
Judicial Scrutiny and Finality: Courts emphasize the importance of finality in judgments and caution against multiple or successive writ petitions or reviews which could lead to chaos or disorder. The Supreme Court has clarified that there could be no finality for an order of the court refusing to entertain a writ petition ["State of U. P. VS Om Prakash Chaudhary - Allahabad"].
Supreme Court Judgments on Third Party Review:
Judicial Approach to Third Party Interventions and Reviews:
Analysis and Conclusion: The third-party review of writ petitions against High Court judgments is a limited and procedural remedy, primarily available when errors of law or fact are evident and when the petitioner has proper standing. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized finality, procedural correctness, and the distinction between review and appeal. It has also clarified that non-parties or interveners must follow procedural rules and cannot bypass established norms to seek review.
In the intricate world of Indian jurisprudence, the finality of court judgments is a cornerstone principle. But what happens when a third party seeks to challenge or review a High Court judgment via a writ petition? This question often arises in contentious legal disputes, raising issues of standing, judicial discipline, and the sanctity of final orders.
Can a third party file a review of a writ petition against a High Court judgment? The Supreme Court has addressed this repeatedly, generally holding that such interventions are not permissible. This blog post delves into the legal framework, key Supreme Court precedents, and practical insights to clarify this position. Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that review of a High Court judgment—especially one challenging a writ petition—cannot be initiated by third parties lacking direct legal interest. Only aggrieved parties with a vested right may seek review, and even then, within strict statutory limits.
Key principles include:- Judicial Discipline: Third-party collateral attacks undermine the hierarchy and finality of judgments. Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm VS K. Santhakumaran - 1998 7 Supreme 340- Doctrine of Merger: Once a High Court order is affirmed or disposed of by a higher court (e.g., via SLP dismissal), it merges with the superior court's decision, barring revisits. Kunhayammed VS State Of Kerala - 2000 5 Supreme 181- Limited Scope of Review: Reviews are confined to errors apparent on the record, not re-examination of merits. Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm VS K. Santhakumaran - 1998 7 Supreme 340
In Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm VS K. Santhakumaran - 1998 7 Supreme 340, the Court sternly observed: The manner in which the learned Single Judge of the High Court exercised the review jurisdiction, after the special leave petitions against the self-same order had been dismissed by this court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, to say the least, was not proper. Interference by the learned single Judge at that stage is subversive of judicial discipline.
This underscores that post-SLP dismissal, High Courts lose jurisdiction to entertain reviews, let alone by third parties.
The apex court has held that once an SLP against a High Court order is dismissed, the High Court cannot review the same order. The High Court had no power or jurisdiction to review the self same order which was the subject matter of challenge in SLP. Very entertainment of review petition was an affront to order of Supreme Court. Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm VS K. Santhakumaran - 1998 7 Supreme 340
Even parties to the original writ cannot ignore finality by filing reviews disguised as writs. This principle extends firmly to third parties.
The doctrine prevents collateral challenges. The judgment of the High Court merges with that of this Court once an appeal is preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal has been granted and disposed of, and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement. However, mere SLP dismissal (without admission) does not trigger full merger, yet it still bars reviews. Kunhayammed VS State Of Kerala - 2000 5 Supreme 181
Further: The entertainment of review petition by a bench different from the one which passed the original order, after the order has been finally disposed of, is a violation of judicial discipline. Kunhayammed VS State Of Kerala - 2000 5 Supreme 181
In another ruling, the Court reiterated that reviews by benches other than the original one, post-final disposal, undermine discipline. Third parties, lacking standing, fare no better. Arun Dev Upadhyaya VS Integrated Sales Service Ltd. - 2023 5 Supreme 307
High Courts have echoed these views, dismissing third-party interventions. For instance, in a Madras High Court matter, a review writ by a vendor (not a party to the original writ) was rejected, citing Supreme Court authority: The Review Apl.Writ (MD).No.56 of 2023 has been filed by the vendor of the writ petitioner who was not a party to the writ petition. M.ABDUL KAREEM, vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF
Similarly, another case affirmed: the present writ petitioner/review petitioner being a party in W.P(MD).No.5288 of 2008 cannot ignore the said judgement even... highlighting per incuriam principles don't aid collateral attacks. M.ABDUL KAREEM vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71522
In Rajasthan High Court proceedings, reviews post-judgment dismissal were disposed, aligning with Supreme Court precedents like D.P. Maheshwari. MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs SURAJ PRAKASH JAT SON OF SHRI JAGDISH LAL
Tribunals too uphold this: Reliance on cases like Board of Cricket Control of India v. Netaji Cricket Club for review maintainability was critiqued when filed by non-aggrieved parties. Jaigad Power Transco Ltd. (JPTL) vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - 2018 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 132Jaigad Power Transco Ltd. (JPTL)VersusMaharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission
Even in constitutional appeals, third-party petitions under Article 136 are discouraged: permitting a third party to prefer a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution would be dangerous and would cause confusion. Toofani VS State of U. P. - 2022 Supreme(All) 112
These cases illustrate a uniform judicial stance against third-party meddling, reinforcing Supreme Court doctrine.
Rarely, if a third party demonstrates exceptional legal interest (e.g., fundamental rights violation affecting them directly), courts may entertain pleas—but typically via original writs, not reviews of disposed matters. Even then, success is unlikely post-SLP dismissal.
In summary, Supreme Court jurisprudence firmly bars third-party reviews of High Court judgments in writ petitions, prioritizing finality, merger, and discipline. As held across precedents like Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm VS K. Santhakumaran - 1998 7 Supreme 340 and Kunhayammed VS State Of Kerala - 2000 5 Supreme 181, such attempts are typically infructuous and subversive.
Key Takeaways:- Third-party standing is absent post-final disposal.- Doctrine of merger seals revisits.- Judicial discipline trumps collateral challenges.
This framework ensures efficient justice delivery. For tailored advice, engage legal experts familiar with your facts.
Word count approx. 1050. Sources cited are for illustrative purposes; full judgments should be reviewed.
#ThirdPartyReview, #SupremeCourtRulings, #HighCourtJudgment
Subsequently, the matter went to the Supreme Court and the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the Supreme Court as well. ... petition after writ petition in the same matter in the same High Court, and have it brought up for consideration before one Judge and another. ... This review application under Chapter IX Rule 14 of the Rules of the Court#H....
13.In view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that the present writ petitioner/review petitioner being a party in W.P(MD).No.5288 of 2008 cannot ignore the said judgement even ... The Review Apl.Writ (MD).No.56 of 2023 has been filed by the vendor of the writ petitioner who was not a party to the writ petition. .....
13.In view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that the present writ petitioner/review petitioner being a party in W.P(MD).No.5288 of 2008 cannot ignore the said judgement even on the principle of per incuriam. ... The Writ Court in WP(MD).No.5288 of 2008 had relied upon a judgement of the Division Bench of our High Court reported in (2005) 3 C....
dismissed by pronouncing the judgement in the open Court. ... Earlier also Supreme Court in D.P. Maheshwari Vs. ... The learned Single Judge by aforesaid judgement has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant/review- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ... The review petition is disposed of accordingly.
As has been noted above, being aggrieved by the judgement and order under review, the review applicant preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. ... 4 Supreme Court Cases 498 (St Mary’s Education Society and Another Versus Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others), the writ petition is maintainable. ... In our view, the order dated April 28, 2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Cou....
The Supreme Court further observed that the review petitions were filed before the judgement in Manoharlal (Supra) and under the law a review petition cannot be filed in anticipation of a favourable judgement in future. ... (Supra) is not applicable in the present case inasmuch as in the present case the Special Leave Petition filed by the State against the order of the writ Court stood dismissed on merits and no r....
The Review Petitioner has also relied on various judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court & this Tribunal. ... On the issue of maintainability of the Review Petition and grounds of review, the Review Petitioner has relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Board of Cricket Control of India and Anr. V. Netaji Cricket Club and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 741. ... The reliance of the Rev....
The Review Petitioner has also relied on various judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court & this Tribunal. ... On the issue of maintainability of the Review Petition and grounds of review, the Review Petitioner has relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Board of Cricket Control of India and Anr. V. ... The reliance of the Review Petitioner on the #HL_STA....
As enunciated by the Supreme Court, all decisions of the Tribunal are subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the concerned High Court and it is at this stage that High Court exercises its power of Judicial Review. ... However, none of these judgements deal with the power of the High Court to entertain a writ petition enforcing rights with respect to ‘service matters....
As enunciated by the Supreme Court, all decisions of the Tribunal are subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the concerned High Court and it is at this stage that High Court exercises its power of Judicial Review. ... However, none of these judgements deal with the power of the High Court to entertain a writ petition enforcing rights with respect to ‘service matters....
The reasoning of this Court was not directed towards the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The thrust of the decision of this Court, which appears to have been misunderstood by the High Court, is with regard to entertaining a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution by a third party. As far as criminal matters are concerned, this Court undoubtedly held that permitting a third party to prefer a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution would be dangerous and would cause confusion.
This Court is of the considered opinion that regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, admittedly, the writ petitioner is a third party agreement holder. If at all the writ petitioner claims that he entered into an agreement with the third respondent, it is for him to workout his remedy in the manner known to law and not by challenging the proceedings of the first respondent / Commercial Tax Department by filing a writ petition. The writ petitioner is no way connected with the arrears of tax to be paid by the respondents 2 and 3 to the first respondent Department.
(l) That the Supreme Court did not admit the SLP filed by the party against the judgement of Bombay High Court. (m) That in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that if compensation is imposed in the present case, such an order will send a wrong signal to the borrowers and guarantors and may even have the effect of encouraging such borrowers and/or guarantors to commit default in repayment of bank dues without fear of any retribution. (n) That having regard to the above, it is once again submitted that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to accept the co....
To put it lucidly, all judgements in terms of Section 2 (9) of CPC are judgements for the purposes of clause 15 of the Letters Patent, but not vice versa. (2) That the interlocutory order in order to be a judgment must contain the traits and trappings of finality either when the order decides the questions in controversy in an ancillary proceeding or in the suit itself or in a part of the proceedings.” The above judgement is frequently quoted with approval in many subsequent judgements of the Supreme Court. But, it cannot be lost sight of that the interpretation given to th....
Learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab as reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909, wherein the Apex Court settled the principles of reviewing the orders by the Court under Section 151 and under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It is submitted that inherent powers be exercised in plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by the court. It is submitted that this Court has inherent power to review its own order and in the case before the Supreme Cour....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
