Doctrine Of Merger Not Invoked By Dismissal Of SLP, While Any Stated Reasons May Still Operate As Law Under Article 141: J&K & Ladakh High Court
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the mere dismissal of a Special Leave Petition, whether with or without recorded reasons, does not result in the impugned order merging with that of the Supreme Court, noting that such merger arises only when leave to appeal is granted and appellate jurisdiction is invoked. The Court was considering two review petitions assailing an earlier order that had resolved several connected applications concerning a compromise arrangement and related disputes over a commercial building, and in which an inquiry and ancillary directions had been issued. Concluding that no error warranted reconsideration, the Court declined to reopen the matter and dismissed both review petitions.
The dispute concerns a compromise agreement dated 15 December 2015 relating to possession and ownership issues involving a commercial building. Certain parties later filed applications seeking recall of the compromise, review of prior orders, and impleadment in the proceedings. These applications were decided together by the High Court in an order dated 3 January 2025.
Subsequently, two sets of review petitions were filed challenging that order. One set of petitioners sought condonation of delay, explaining that they had initially approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition, which they withdrew after learning that another related review petition had already been filed before the High Court. They argued that the High Court had not addressed the question of whether an individual allegedly representing them held valid authority and contended that certain observations regarding party status in earlier criminal revision proceedings were factually incorrect. They placed copies of pleadings from those proceedings to support their position.
The second group of review petitioners, who had earlier sought impleadment, contended that the High Court incorrectly recorded that their ownership of part of the building had not been admitted and asserted that their status as co-owners had been acknowledged in written submissions. They relied on excerpts from the synopsis filed by other parties to support this assertion. The petitions also referenced legal principles concerning the effect of dismissal of a Special Leave Petition.
Justice Sanjay Dhar recorded: “Mere dismissal of Special Leave Petition without expression of opinion by the Supreme Court on merits and without granting leave to file the appeal may not foreclose the right of the review petitioners to file review petition before this Court.”
The Court referred to Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala and stated: “If it is a non-speaking order, i.e. it does not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, it would neither attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted in place of the order put in issue before it nor would it be a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution.”
It further recorded: “From the foregoing analysis of legal position, it is clear that an order dismissing an SLP would not attract the doctrine of merger though the reasons stated by the Supreme Court would certainly attract applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution.”
On the issue of respondent No.1’s participation, the Court stated: “The stand of the review petitioners that respondent No.1 is not a party to the revision petition before the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, is belied from their own documents.”
Regarding co-ownership claims, the Court observed: “Stand of Mrs. Zahida Shah, Athar Shabir Shah and Owais Shabir Shah, in the written arguments or synopsis filed by them before this Court during the course of arguments would not amount to admission on their part with regard to co-ownership of the building in question by the review petitioner in RP No.7/2025.”
Finally, the Court recorded: “What the review petitioners have, by filing the present review petitions, tried to do is to re-open the case by projecting the contentions which have already been considered by this Court in the order sought to be reviewed. The same is impermissible in law.”
The Court directed: “In view of the aforesaid reasons assigned by the review petitioners, the delay in filing the review petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of.”
“In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the review petitioners have not been able to point out any error, much less an error apparent on the face of the record, in the order sought to be reviewed. Both the review petitions are bereft of any merit. The same are dismissed accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Aswad Attar, Advocate with Mr. Sheikh Anan Hussain, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Suhail Mehraj, Advocate
Case Title: Zahida Shah & Anr. v. Bilal Ahmad Dar & Ors.
Case Number: RP Nos.74/2025 and 7/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
