Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court, Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K.V. Viswanathan on Tuesday (September 23) held that once a Special Leave Petition is withdrawn without conditions, a fresh petition challenging the same order cannot be pursued. The Bench further clarified that if a review petition against the original order is dismissed, neither that rejection nor the underlying order may be challenged afresh. Dismissing appeals by borrower against Federal Bank Ltd., the Court upheld the principles under Order XXIII Rule 1 and Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC in the context of SARFAESI Act proceedings.

The appellant, Satheesh V.K., was a borrower within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). He had obtained financial assistance from the respondent, Federal Bank Ltd., a secured creditor under Section 2(zd) of the Act, by creating an equitable mortgage over properties situated in Kozhikode. Following default in repayment obligations, the loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset and recovery proceedings were initiated under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

Also Read: SARFAESI Act | Supreme Court : Amended Section 13(8) Applies To Loans Sanctioned Before 2016 If Default Occurred Afterwards | Notes Conflict Between Section 13(8) And Rules Governing Borrower’s Right Of Redemption | Calls On Government To Amend

Aggrieved by these measures, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. By order dated October 1, 2024, the High Court directed him to deposit ₹2,00,00,000 by October 30, 2024, and to discharge the remaining dues with interest in 12 equal monthly instalments, commencing November 15, 2024. The order provided that failure to comply would entitle the Bank to continue recovery under SARFAESI. Liberty was also given to the appellant to approach the Bank for a one-time settlement after making the initial payment.

The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court through a special leave petition, but on November 28, 2024, the petition was withdrawn after the Bench expressed reservations on entertaining it. No liberty to refile was sought or granted. He then filed a review petition before the High Court, which was dismissed on December 5, 2024. Subsequently, two civil appeals were filed before the Supreme Court, one challenging the High Court’s original order and the other challenging the dismissal of the review petition.

The respondent objected to the maintainability of the appeals, citing Order XLVII Rule 7(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and contending that no second special leave petition lay after unconditional withdrawal of the earlier petition.

The Court recorded that the appellant had “moved from court to court… without showing semblance of an inclination to repay the dues of the respondent and to buy time by resorting to technicalities.” “These are certainly factors which we propose to bear in mind while deciding these appeals.”

On the issue of maintainability, the Court referred to the precedent in Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. and Others, noting: “He cannot, at any rate, now challenge the order of the High Court over again having withdrawn the SLP which he filed in challenge of the same order. It is not a permissible practice to challenge the same order over again after withdrawing the special leave petition without obtaining permission of the court for withdrawing it with liberty to move for special leave again subsequently.”

The Bench further stated that the “principle underlying Rule 1 of Order 23 of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy.”

It was observed that “a second special leave petition would not be maintainable at the instance of a party, who elects not to proceed with the challenge laid by him in an earlier special leave petition and withdraws such petition without obtaining leave to file a fresh special leave petition.”

Also Read: Himachal Pradesh High Court: Accidentally Shooting A Person Mistaken For A Wild Animal Amounts To Negligence, Not Murder

Regarding review petitions, the Court recorded: “That no appeal lies from an order rejecting a petition for review is clear from the plain language of Order XLVII Rule 7(1), CPC.”

The Court concluded that entertaining such appeals “would be contrary to public policy and can even tantamount to sitting in appeal over the previous order of this Court which has attained finality.”

The Court held: “For the foregoing reasons, the preliminary objections to the maintainability of the appeals raised by the respondent succeed. The civil appeals are, consequently, dismissed. Connected applications, if any, stand closed. If so advised, the appellant may pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M. K. S. Menon, Adv.; Ms. Usha Nandini V., AOR; Mr. Shashank Menon, Adv.; Mr. John Thomas Arakal, Adv.

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR; Mr. Saket Jee, Adv.; Mr. Santhosh Kumar Kolkundra, Adv.; Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Vinay Kumar Puvvala, Adv.; Ms. Ankita Kutthi, Adv.

Case Title: Satheesh V.K. v. The Federal Bank Ltd.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1140
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 11752–11753 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice K.V. Viswanathan