dear members
i have the following questions regarding the supreme court seemingly giving contradictory judgements.
1. in our case, the supreme court remanded the reviews to high court following the view taken in kunhayammed vs state of kerala case.
2. subsequently, a two member bench in rajamouli vs swamy has considered the two full bench orders, one in abbai maligai vs santhakumaran and another in kunhayammed's case and has held that the review filed after dismissal of SLP amounts to abuse of the process of court.
3. there are other decisions from 1994, for example in suseel finance vs lata, kumaran silk traders vs devendra etc. which hold that an order dismissing a review is not appealable.
4. there is a recent decision in 2010, in meghmala exports case (by the same judge who wrote the judgement in our case, justice sathasivam), in which the court has reiterated the view that a review after dismissal of SLP amounts to abuse of the process of law.
in our case, the landlord lost the case - in the main suit and the execution proceedings - twice upto supreme court. the sale deed was also executed by the trial court itself.
the landlord filed a review in high court after dismissal of SLP, which was initially dismissed. but on appeal to SC, it was remanded back based solely on the kunhayammed case order. the remanded review was allowed. our appeal in SC against the allowing of review has been dismissed.
my question is whether we can question the contradictory verdicts on the same issue by way of a curative petition.
what do our learned members think on the issue? though dismissal of SLP does not lay down any law, does it not operate as final order between the parties? is it not an abuse of the process of the court if a party whose SLP has been dismissed goes back to high court and file a review? will it not amount to indefinite protraction of the litigation? especially if the judge who originally passed the order is no longer available?
please do reply and enlighten me.
yours
v.lakshminarayanan
palani
