<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Second SLP under Article 136 not maintainable after failed review; merger under Order XLVII r.7(1) CPC affirmed</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92978</link>
    <description>The SC dismissed the second SLP under Article 136 as not maintainable. The appellant, having earlier withdrawn a prior SLP with liberty to seek review before the HC under Article 226, could not re-agitate the parent order after the review failed; the Court applied the merger principle under Order XLVII r.7(1) CPC and held that rejection of a review affirms the original order and does not merge into a new decree. Entertaining a fresh SLP in such circumstances would subvert finality and amount to impermissible re-litigation. Public-policy considerations (interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium) were invoked. Preliminary objections by the respondent were upheld and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:53 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=855651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Second SLP under Article 136 not maintainable after failed review; merger under Order XLVII r.7(1) CPC affirmed</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92978</link>
      <description>The SC dismissed the second SLP under Article 136 as not maintainable. The appellant, having earlier withdrawn a prior SLP with liberty to seek review before the HC under Article 226, could not re-agitate the parent order after the review failed; the Court applied the merger principle under Order XLVII r.7(1) CPC and held that rejection of a review affirms the original order and does not merge into a new decree. Entertaining a fresh SLP in such circumstances would subvert finality and amount to impermissible re-litigation. Public-policy considerations (interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium) were invoked. Preliminary objections by the respondent were upheld and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:53 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>