results.” [Emphasis supplied] 50. In the instant case, leave to appeal was granted vide the order dated 27.08.2010, and the Civil Appeals preferred by the State of Haryana were then dismissed on 16.11.2016. Therefore, since the previous SLPs arising out of the same impugned judgement were dismissed after granting leave, arguably, the doctrine of merger would be attracted. 13 (2019) 4 SCC 376 3151. However, we may hasten to add that in Kunhayammed (supra), this Court held that the doctrine of merger is neither a doctrine of constitutional law nor of statutory recognition. Since it is a common law principle directed towards judicial propriety, the same should not be applied in a straitjacket manner, and the nature of facts and circumstances of that particular case should be considered. 52. Still further, a three-judge bench of this Court—to which one of us (Surya Kant, J.) was a member—in GNCTD v. BSK Realtors,14 analyzed the aforementioned exception to the doctrine of merger and held