In Brief
The Supreme Court allowed the appellants' challenge to a High Court judgment that had permitted respondents to file a second set of review petitions challenging the dismissal of their first review petitions. The Court held that successive review petitions seeking to re-argue earlier rejected arguments and belatedly introduce previously available evidence constitute abuse of court process and are impermissible under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Review jurisdiction is strictly limited to cases where new evidence was genuinely unavailable despite due diligence, or where there is patent error on the record. The Court reversed the High Court's order and restored the earlier judgment dismissing the respondents' claims regarding alleged surrender of protected tenancy rights over agricultural land.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.