Maintainability of challenge to a review rejection failed where the main judgment was left unchallenged.

A special leave petition confined to challenging the order rejecting review, without assailing the main judgment, was held not maintainable. The Court applied the principle that a review-rejection order cannot be attacked in isolation when the underlying judgment remains unchallenged. The petitioner's reliance on an exception failed because the cited earlier decision had not considered binding precedents on the point and was treated as per incuriam. The preliminary objection to maintainability was accepted, and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a special leave petition confined to the order rejecting review, without challenging the main judgment, was maintainable.

Analysis: The rule applied was that an order rejecting review cannot be assailed in isolation when the main judgment remains unchallenged. The exception relied upon by the petitioner was held not to assist, since the earlier binding decisions on the point had not been considered there and that decision was treated as rendered per incuriam. The preliminary objection to maintainability was therefore accepted.

Conclusion: The special leave petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---