Bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Dipankar Datta explained that the Supreme Court entertains Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) without the High Court being approached only under specific circumstances. According to their explanation, the Supreme Court may consider entertaining an SLP directly when there is a substantial question of general importance or if a similar issue is already pending for consideration before the court.

Parties generally need to approach the relevant High Court for remedies before seeking the Supreme Court's intervention through an SLP. However, in exceptional cases involving significant legal issues or when there is already a similar matter under the Supreme Court's consideration, the court may directly entertain an SLP without the High Court's involvement.

"The power to grant leave under Article 136 itself being discretionary, this Court would not allow a party invoking the ‘special leave’ jurisdiction to bypass the remedy available at the level of the High Court without the two situations, as aforesaid, being satisfied," the order stated.

Court was hearing a contempt petition related to the willful disobedience of an order issued by the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) concerning a property dispute. The Court was considering taking action against the respondents for not complying with the court's order.

In this particular case, it appears that the Supreme Court had previously issued an order in the SLP, which was a final decision on the property dispute. However, the respondents allegedly did not comply with the court's order, leading to the contempt petition.

Supreme Court, while disposing of the SLP, settled the dispute and ordered the respondents to hand over possession of the disputed property. Additionally, the compensation granted to the respondents was marginally enhanced compared to the previous decision.

The High Court, upon receiving or considering these objections, directed the executing court (the court responsible for carrying out the execution) to address and decide on the objections raised by the respondents.

Based on the direction from the High Court, the executing court found the objections raised by the respondents to be maintainable, meaning that they were considered valid and worthy of consideration.

The appeal indicates that the daughter and son disagreed with the interim order and were not satisfied with the decision made by the executing court regarding the objections raised by the respondents. By filing an appeal, they sought a review or reversal of the interim order and requested the court to address and resolve the issue of resistance posed by the respondents.

The court likely concluded that there was no need for its intervention, especially considering that the order issued by the executing court (the lower court responsible for implementing a previous decision) was not challenged or brought before the High Court (a higher court that typically hears appeals from lower courts).

This suggests that the party or parties filing the petitions before the top court failed to demonstrate a valid reason or legal grounds for the higher court to interfere with the lower court's decision.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan and Arvind Minocha, along with advocates George Cherian, Mayank Kshirsagar, Anshula Laroiya, and Abha Goel, represented the petitioners in the case before the court. 

Senior Advocate V Chitambaresh and Surendra Kumar, along with advocates TG Narayanan Nair, MT George, Susy Abraham, Johns George, C Venugopal, Sonal Gupta, and KV Mohan, appeared as representatives for the respondents in the case.

Case Title : Jini Dhanrajgir & Anr v Shibu Mathew & Anr