2013 (2) TMI 736 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Special leave petition be allowed - HELD THAT - The law seems to be well settled that in the absence of a challenge to the main judgment, the special leave petition filed challenging only the subsequent order rejecting the review petition, would not be maintainable.In the present case, the preliminary objection has been raised at the threshold.Apex court accepted the preliminary objection raised. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Since the special leave petition has been dismissed, no orders are required to be passed on the application for impleadment as party respondent.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Maintainability of the special leave petition challenging the order dismissing the review petition.

Detailed Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard a case where the petitioner challenged the order of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, which dismissed the review petition seeking a review of a previous judgment. The Division Bench dismissed the review petition as it sought a rehearing based on facts not presented during the initial appeal. The petitioner did not challenge the original judgment in the special leave petition, limiting the challenge to the order dismissing the review petition. The respondent raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the special leave petition.

The respondent's counsel relied on previous judgments to argue that a special leave petition challenging only the order rejecting a review petition is not maintainable if the main judgment is not challenged. The Supreme Court noted the settled law that such petitions are not maintainable without challenging the main judgment. However, the petitioner's counsel referred to a subsequent judgment where it was argued that dismissing the appeal without hearing the parties after granting leave in the special leave petition would not be proper.

The Court observed that the subsequent judgment cited by the petitioner's counsel was rendered in ignorance of earlier judgments and could not be considered a precedent. Consequently, the Court accepted the preliminary objection raised by the respondent's counsel and dismissed the special leave petition. Since the petition was dismissed, no orders were required on the application for impleadment as a party respondent.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the special leave petition challenging the order dismissing the review petition was not maintainable without challenging the main judgment. The Court accepted the preliminary objection and dismissed the petition based on the settled legal principle that such petitions are not maintainable in the absence of challenging the main judgment.