Summary
The Court declined a special leave petition challenging only rejection of High Court review when the main judgment had already been unsuccessfully challenged in an earlier SLP. Dismissal of that earlier SLP without merger did not preclude an available statutory review, which the High Court had considered on merits. It did not, however, permit indirect modification of the final main judgment through an SLP against review rejection alone.
Issues
- Whether an SLP against rejection of review alone could be entertained after the main judgment had already survived an earlier SLP.
- Whether absence of merger on dismissal of the earlier SLP altered the result.
Held
- Dismissal of an SLP without merger does not by itself deprive an aggrieved party of an available statutory review. Here the High Court did not reject review as unavailable; it examined the merits and found no apparent error. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- Rejection of review does not merge or replace the original judgment. An aggrieved party must challenge the main judgment; an SLP directed only against the review rejection is not entertained under the settled precedential principle. This principle is not a statutory curtailment of Article 136 jurisdiction. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The main judgment had already been unsuccessfully challenged and was unassailable in this later SLP. No relief indirectly diluting, modifying or reversing it could therefore be granted through the challenge to review rejection alone. (¶¶ 10, 15)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed; the High Court’s main judgment and rejection of review remain undisturbed.