A High Court may entertain a review petition of its own prior judgment even after the Supreme Court dismisses a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging that judgment without assigning reasons. The judgment clarifies that an unreasoned dismissal of SLP does not trigger the doctrine of merger, nor does it constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution. This reaffirmation upholds existing precedent and serves as binding authority on the review jurisdiction of High Courts in arbitration and civil contract matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RP/115/2022 of UNION OF INDIA TH CHIEF ENGINEER Vs M/S D KHOSLA AND COMPANY CNR JKHC020045402022 |
| Date of Registration | 15-09-2022 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR |
| Court | High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh |
| Bench | Single Bench: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and subordinate courts; clarificatory precedent for other courts regarding review after SLP dismissal without reasons. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and applies Supreme Court judgments including Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala; V.Senthur and another vs. M. VijayKumar and another; and distinguishes the effect of SLP dismissal without reasons. |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure / Arbitration / Doctrine of Merger |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court reaffirmed that review jurisdiction is limited to grounds specified in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, including discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or “any other sufficient reason” ejusdem generis with the preceding grounds. A review is not an appeal in disguise. The court clarified that mere dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court, with or without reasons, does not attract the doctrine of merger and the High Court’s judgment remains open to review on permissible grounds. Even when the SLP is dismissed with reasons, unless it declares the law under Article 141 or substitutes the impugned order, merger does not occur. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala; V.Senthur and another vs. M. VijayKumar and another (Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 638/2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4954 of 2016, decided on 01.10.2021) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The court relied on settled law that review jurisdiction should not be equated with appellate jurisdiction and must be confined to error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or sufficient reason as interpreted ejusdem generis. On the doctrine of merger, it cited Supreme Court authority holding that SLP dismissal without a reasoned order does not result in merger or a binding declaration under Article 141. The reasons provided in a speaking order may be binding as law declared, but mere dismissal, even if reasoned, does not by itself attract merger. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The Union of India sought review of a prior High Court judgment dated 09.05.2022, which had remitted certain contractor claims (Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, and 16) to the Arbitrator for fresh adjudication, despite the court’s own findings that such claims were barred by the contract. The respondent-contractor had unsuccessfully challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court via SLP, which was dismissed without assigning reasons. The respondent argued merger had occurred, precluding review; the court rejected this and allowed review, setting aside remit in respect of the barred claims. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh; the High Court itself |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals dealing with review petitions post SLP dismissal without reasons |
| Follows | Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala; V.Senthur and another vs. M. VijayKumar and another |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that review jurisdiction is confined to patent error, discovery of new evidence, or sufficient reason as interpreted ejusdem generis.
- Clarifies that an SLP dismissal by the Supreme Court without a reasoned order does not preclude the High Court from entertaining a review petition; the doctrine of merger does not apply in such a scenario.
- Holds that only a specific declaration of law by the Supreme Court in a reasoned order attracts Article 141; otherwise, the High Court’s judgment is not merged nor foreclosed from review.
- Lawyers seeking review after a failed SLP should carefully evaluate if the SLP was dismissed without reasons, as this preserves reviewability.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court began by restating the limited grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC: discovery of new, material evidence; error apparent on the face of record; and “any other sufficient reason” construable ejusdem generis.
- Review is not an appeal in disguise and must stay within these statutory confines.
- It examined its own prior judgment and found that, regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, and 16, it had erroneously remitted those matters to the Arbitrator despite holding them barred by contract, thus constituting an error apparent on the face of record.
- Addressing the respondent’s “merger” argument, the court analyzed the effect of the Supreme Court’s SLP dismissal.
- Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kunhayammed and V. Senthur, it articulated that the doctrine of merger does not apply when an SLP is dismissed without reasons.
- Even where a reasoned dismissal occurs, merger applies only where the Supreme Court substitutes its own order or declares law under Article 141.
- In this case, since the SLP was dismissed without reasons, no merger occurred, and the High Court’s judgment remained open to review under permissible grounds.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Union of India)
- The High Court, having found certain claims contrary to the contract, erred in remitting those claims to the Arbitrator, constituting an error apparent on the face of record.
- Sought review and recall of the prior judgment’s remit limited to those specific claims.
Respondent (M/S D. Khosla & Co.)
- Opposed review on the ground that the High Court’s judgment had merged with the Supreme Court’s order dismissing the SLP, thus barring review.
- Relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in V. Senthur to contend that post-SLP dismissal, review was unavailable.
Factual Background
The Union of India sought review of a High Court judgment dated 09.05.2022, which set aside the Arbitrator’s award for claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, and 16 as being contrary to the contract but nevertheless remitted them to the Arbitrator for fresh adjudication. The respondent-contractor had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed without reasons. The respondent contended that merger had taken place, barring review. The court found an error apparent in its earlier order and addressed the effect of SLP dismissal on review jurisdiction.
Statutory Analysis
- Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC: Grounds for review include (i) discovery of new and important evidence not earlier available, (ii) mistake/error apparent on the face of the record, and (iii) any other sufficient reason, which must be construed ejusdem generis.
- Doctrine of Merger: The court read Supreme Court precedents to hold that the doctrine applies only when the Supreme Court’s order substitutes or declares law, not upon unreasoned dismissal of SLP.
- Article 141, Constitution of India: Declaration of law by the Supreme Court is binding, but only if actually declared in the SLP’s dismissal order.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in this single-judge judgment.
Procedural Innovations
None noted in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and applies precedents such as Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala and V. Senthur regarding the doctrine of merger and the maintainability of review after SLP dismissal.