The Doctrine of Merger is a common law principle in Indian jurisprudence that ensures only one operative order exists concerning a specific subject matter at any given time. This doctrine maintains the hierarchy and propriety of judicial decisions, preventing multiple conflicting orders on the same issue.

MEANING AND EXPLANATION

The Doctrine of Merger posits that when a superior court revises, modifies, or affirms a decision of a subordinate court, the subordinate court’s decision merges into that of the superior court. Consequently, the superior court’s decision becomes the singular, enforceable judgment. This principle was elucidated in Gojer Bros. Pvt. Ltd. v. Ratan Lal Singh, (1974) 2 SCC 453, where the Supreme Court stated, “The doctrine is based on the simple reasoning that there cannot be, at the same time, more than one operative order governing the same subject matter.”

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Originating from English common law, the Doctrine of Merger was adopted into Indian legal practice to uphold the hierarchical structure of the judiciary. Its application ensures that once an appellate or revisional authority has adjudicated a matter, the original decision ceases to have independent existence, thereby maintaining judicial discipline and consistency.

APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE

The application of the Doctrine of Merger depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order and the statutory provisions conferring such jurisdiction. In State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd., (1967) 19 STC 144 (SC), the Supreme Court observed that the doctrine is not of universal application and its applicability depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order in each case.

APPEAL, REVIEW, AND REVISION

• Appeal: When an appeal is preferred, and the appellate court passes a decree, the original decree of the lower court merges into the appellate court’s decree. This was affirmed in Chandi Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad, (2004) 8 SCC 724, where the Supreme Court held that the decree of the trial court merges into the decree of the appellate court, and it is the appellate court’s decree that is executable.

• Review: Filing a review petition does not per se result in the merger of the original order with the order passed in review. The original order remains effective unless modified or reversed upon review. In Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 359, the Supreme Court clarified that the doctrine of merger does not apply to orders refusing special leave to appeal and, by extension, to orders in review petitions.

• Revision: In revisional proceedings, if the revisional authority alters the decision of the subordinate court, the latter’s decision merges into that of the revisional authority. However, if the revision is dismissed, the original order remains intact. This principle was discussed in Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat, (1970) 1 SCC 648, where the Supreme Court held that the revisional order supersedes the order of the lower court.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE

The Doctrine of Merger is not absolute and has notable exceptions:

• Dismissal of Special Leave Petition (SLP): The dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court, whether by a speaking or non-speaking order, does not lead to the merger of the lower court’s order into that of the Supreme Court. In Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 359, the Court held that an order refusing special leave to appeal does not attract the doctrine of merger.

• Dismissal on Technical Grounds: If an appeal is dismissed on grounds such as limitation or lack of jurisdiction, the original order remains unaffected, and the doctrine does not apply. This was observed in V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 5 SCC 373, where the Supreme Court held that dismissal of an appeal on technical grounds does not result in merger.

KEY CASE LAWS

1. Gojer Bros. Pvt. Ltd. v. Ratan Lal Singh, (1974) 2 SCC 453

   • Facts: The appellant challenged the validity of a sale deed executed in favor of the respondent.
   • Issue: Whether the appellate court’s decree supersedes the trial court’s decree.
   • Held: The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s decree merges into the appellate court’s decree, and only the appellate court’s decree is executable.

2. Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 359

   • Facts: The petitioners sought clarification on whether the dismissal of an SLP results in the merger of the lower court’s order with that of the Supreme Court.
   • Issue: Does the dismissal of an SLP by a non-speaking order attract the doctrine of merger?
   • Held: The Supreme Court clarified that the dismissal of an SLP without a speaking order does not lead to the merger of the lower court’s order into that of the Supreme Court.

3. Chandi Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad, (2004) 8 SCC 724

   • Facts: The dispute involved the execution of a decree passed by the trial court, which was later modified by the appellate court.
   • Issue: Which decree is executable—the trial court’s or the appellate court’s?
   • Held: The Supreme Court held that the decree of the trial court merges into the decree of the appellate court, and it is the appellate court’s decree that is executable.

LEGAL PROVISIONS AND PRINCIPLES

• Article 136 of the Constitution of India: Grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to allow special leave to appeal against any judgment or order. The exercise of this power does not