Your question can be divided in two parts.
Firstly, whether a review petition can be filed in the high court after dismissal of SLP against the high court order. If the SLP has been dismissed by a speaking order by considering merits of the case, then due to the doctrine of merger, the high court judgment is supposed to have merged in the SC order, and therefore, no review petition can subsequently be filed in the high court. However, if the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP in limine without passing a speaking order, then a review petition can be filed in the high court, and in this regard, you may see my article: Review petition in High Court after dismissal of SLP by Supreme Court by non-speaking order.
Secondly, whether a second review petition can be filed in the high court. Here also, there could be two situations. The first situation is when the second review application is filed to review the order passed in the first review application. This is not permissible in view of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code, which lay down that “No application to review an order made on an application for a review or a decree or order passed or made on a review shall be entertained”. But, if it is in respect of an order under Article 226 of the Constitution (and not in respect of a CPC order), then it may depend on the relevant rules of the high court concerned. The second situation is that the second review application is filed in the original order itself in which previously the first review application was filed. In this situation, by a detailed reasoned order, a division bench of Madras High Court in the case of T.N. Arasu Kooturuvuthurai Paniyalargal Sangam v. M.R. Srinivasan, (2015) 4 LW 741 (Mad) (DB) : (2015) 5 CTC 225 (Mad) (DB), has held that such a second review application may be permissible in law. It is pertinent to point out that with respect of its own power to entertain a second review petition, in view of the provisions of Article 137 of the Constitution, in the case of Ram Deo Chauhan v. Bani Kanta Das, (2010) 14 SCC 209, the Supreme Court has held that it can entertain a second review petition in exceptional circumstances. It is germane to point out that in some old cases, such as (i) Gobinda Ram Mondal v. Bholanath Bhatta, (1888) ILR 15 Cal 432; (ii) Pallia v. Mathura Prasad, (1916) ILR 38 All 280; (iii) Hari Singh v. Muhammad Said, (1927) ILR 8 LAH 54, also, it was held that a second review petition may be permissible in law. While second review petition may be permissible in law, it would generally be very rare and would happen only in exceptional circumstances.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
