Back
2013 Supreme(MP) 26
(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
K.S. Radhakrishnan and Dipal Misra, JJ.
Cine Exhibition Pvt.Ltd. v. Collector, District Gwalior and others
Interlocutory Applications No.5 and 6 of 2012 [Published in 2012(1) JLJ 364] : against order dated 28.8.2012 of Registrar;
Decided on 4.1.2013.
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan with B.S. Banthia, Mishra Saurabh, Puneet Jain, Sushil Kumar Jain, Anurag Gohil, Ms. Ruchika Gohil and Niraj Sharma for appearing parties.
Headnote:Supreme Court Rules, 1966 -- O.18 R.5 and O.40 Rr.3 and 5 -- application for clarification/modification of judgment -- relief sought on basis of fraud and material suppression of documents -- application not maintainable -- it amounts to review of judgment -- such application rightly rejected by Registrar -- proper remedy is review.
Held : We fully endorse the view expressed by the Registrar that the prayers made in the applications would clearly fall in the realm of an application for review of the judgment of this Court dated 11.1.2012 on the ground of fraud and material suppression of documents and there is no question of clarification/modification of the judgment of this Court dated 11.1.2012.
The practice of overcoming the provision for review under Order XL of the Rules by filing an application for rehearing/modification/clarification has to be deprecated.
Generally an application for correction of a typographical error or omission of a word etc. in a judgment or order would lie, but a petition which is intended to review an order or judgment under Order XLVII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in criminal proceedings except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record, could not be achieved by filing an application for clarification/modification/recall or rehearing, for which a properly constituted review is the remedy. (2000)7 SCC 296 relied on. (1982)2 SCC 398 referred to.
mPpre U;k;ky; fu;e] 1966 && vk- 18 fu-5 rFkk vk- 40 fu- 3 rFkk 5 && fu.kZ; ds Li”Vhdj.k@:ikarj.k ds fy;s vkosnu && diV rFkk lkjoku~ nLrkostksa dks fNikus ds vk/kkj ij lgk;rk pkgh xbZ && vkosnu pykus ;ksX; ugha && ;g fu.kZ; ds iqufoZyksdu dh dksfV esa vkrk gS && jftLVªkj }kjk ,slk vkosnu Bhd&gh [kkfjt fd;k x;k && mfpr mipkj iqufoZyksdu gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ge jftLVªkj dh jk; dk iw.kZr% leFkZu djrs gSa fd vkosnu&i=ksa esa diV rFkk lkjoku~ nLrkostksa ds fNikus ds vk/kkj ij dh xbZ izkFkZuk Li”Vr% bl U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 11-1-2012 ds iqufoZyksdu ds fy, vkosnu ds {ks= esa vk,axs vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 11-1-2012 ds Li”Vhdj.k@:ikarj.k dk iz’u ugha gSA
fu;eksa ds vkns’k 40 ds v/khu iqufoZyksdu ds fy;s mica/k dks ijkHkwr dj iqu% lquokbZ@:ikarj.k@Li”Vhdj.k ds fy;s vkosnu izLrqr djus dh izFkk dks vLohdkj djuk gksxkA
lkekU;r% fu.kZ; ;k vkns’k esa ‘kCn vkfn dh Vadjk =qfV ;k yksi ‘kq) djus ds fy;s vkosnu pykus ;ksX; gksxk] ijarq vkosnu ftlls fu.kZ; ;k vkns’k dk flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds vkns’k 47 fu;e 1 ds v/khu rFkk nkafMd dk;Zokfg;ksa esa vfHkys[k ls izR;{kn’khZ =qfV ds vk/kkj ds flok; iqufoZyksdu djuk vk’kf;r gS] Li”Vhdj.k@:ikarj.k@iqu% lquokbZ ds fy, vkosnu izLrqr dj izkIr ugha fd;k tk ldrk ftlds fy;s mfpr :i ls iqufoZyksdu laLFkkfir djuk mipkj gSa ¼2000½ 7 ,l lh lh 296 voyafcrA ¼1982½ 2 ,l lh lh 398 fufnZ”VA
1. These applications have been preferred under Order XVIII rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’) against the order of the Registrar dated 28.8.2012, alleging that the applications under Order XVIII rule 5 of the Rules lodging the applications for clarification/modification of the judgment dated 11.1.2012 of this Court in Civil Appeals No.281-282 of 2012 cannot be sustained in law. Applications for clarification/modification were filed on 21.2.1012 seeking the following reliefs :
(a) Clarify/modify the observations contained in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the judgment dated 11.1.2012 in view of the Notifications being produced by the applicant herein along with the present application specially Notification dated 20.9.1965 issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trusts Act, 1960;
(b) Clarify/modify operative directions in the judgment dated 11.1.2012 by which it has been held that the Gwalior Development Authority did not have authority or power to execute the lease in favour of the applicant herein;
(c) Direct the appellant to produce before this Hon’ble Court the official records in respect of Scheme 2-B framed by the then Gwalior Improvement Trust including the Notifications and orders issued by the State Government in respect thereto photocopies of some of which are being produced along with the present applications; and
(d) Pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
1.1 Applications were rejected holding those applications filed would amount to seeking review of the judgment and order passed by this Court on 11.1.2012. It was noticed that on the pretext of application for clarification/modification, applicant, in fact, sought nothing but recalling of the judgment and order dated 11.1.2012 and substitution of the directions contained therein which according to the Registrar, would amount to a prayer for reviewing the judgment. Applications were, therefore, rejected placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Urban and others [(2000)7 SCC 296].
2. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh had suppressed various documents which had substantial bearing on the outcome of the appeals. According to the learned senior counsel the following are some of the documents which were suppressed from this Court :
“(i) Gazette Notification dated 27th September, 1963 formulating Housing Scheme under section 46 of the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 (Act of 1960).
(ii) Gazette Notification dated 4th October, 1963 for Housing Schemes.
(iii) Details of the Acquisition of land and structure of village Ghospura and Mehra (Annexure R-1/3).
(iv) Gazette Notification under section 52(1)(s) of the Act of 1960 sanctioning the Scheme.”
3. Learned senior counsel submitted that the only argument urged before the Bench was that since the property in question was Government land which had not been transferred by it to Gwalior Development Authority, the authority could not have dealt with such land by executing a lease which had been in favour of the applicants. Learned senior counsel submitted that various statements made by the State were couched with malice, fraud and material suppression of facts. Consequently, it was stated that the Registrar should have entertained the applications for modification/clarification and were wrongly lodged.
4. We fully endorse the view expressed by the Registrar that the prayers made in the applications would clearly fall in the realm of an application for review of the judgment of this Court dated 11.1.2012 on the ground of fraud and material suppression of documents and there is no question of clarification/modification of the judgment of this Court dated 11.1.2012.
5. We are of the view that the practice of overcoming the provision
