Second Special Leave Petition Not Maintainable If First SLP Against Same Order Was Withdrawn Unconditionally : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that once a Special Leave Petition (SLP) is withdrawn unconditionally, a party cannot later file a second SLP against the same order. The Court further explained that if a review petition (filed in the court whose order was initially challenged) fails, then neither that review rejection nor the original order can be challenged by way of a fresh SLP. In the particular case, Satheesh challenged an order by the Kerala High Court ordering him to repay loan dues. He filed an SLP in the Supreme Court, but when the Court expressed doubts about the case merits, his counsel withdrew it unconditionally and did not seek “liberty to file afresh.” After that, a review petition in the High Court was dismissed. Satheesh then filed two new SLPs — one against the original High Court order, and another against the order rejecting the review. The Supreme Court held both were impermissible. It applied Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which bars reopening a matter once a case is withdrawn without permission to refile. The Court also cited Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. (1999), affirming that these CPC principles apply to SLPs. The Court emphasized the doctrine of interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (public interest in ending litigation), calling further challenge in such cases contrary to public policy.