Maintainability of second special leave petition barred after unconditional withdrawal; appeal from review dismissal also not maintainable.

An unconditional withdrawal of a special leave petition challenging an order, without liberty to file afresh or revive the challenge if review fails, bars a second special leave petition against the same order on the principle reflected in Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC as a matter of public policy. An appeal does not lie from the dismissal of a review petition, because Order XLVII Rule 7(1) CPC bars an appeal from an order refusing review. Authorities on non-speaking dismissal of special leave petitions and merger were held inapplicable where the earlier challenge had been withdrawn without liberty. The second challenge was therefore held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second special leave petition or appeal was maintainable after the earlier special leave petition challenging the same order had been unconditionally withdrawn, and whether an appeal could lie from the dismissal of the review petition.

Analysis: The earlier challenge to the same order had been withdrawn without any liberty to file a fresh special leave petition or to revive the challenge if review failed. The principle underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies to special leave petitions as a rule of public policy, barring a second attempt to assail the same order after unconditional withdrawal. The dismissal of the review petition did not alter the original order, and Order XLVII Rule 7(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 bars an appeal from an order refusing review. The Court distinguished authorities dealing with non-speaking dismissal of special leave petitions and doctrine of merger, holding that those decisions did not assist where the earlier challenge was withdrawn without liberty.

Conclusion: The second challenge to the same order was not maintainable, and the objection to maintainability succeeded.

---