Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
In the intricate world of Indian litigation, parties often grapple with post-order remedies like modification or review. A common question arises: CAN A PARTY SEEK MODIFICATION & REVIEW OF THE SAME ORDER SIMULTANEOUSLY? The short answer, based on established judicial precedents, is generally no—especially when a modification application is essentially a disguised review petition. This practice circumvents strict procedural safeguards and is viewed as an abuse of process by courts.
This blog post delves into the legal nuances, drawing from Supreme Court rulings and related cases. We'll examine why courts prioritize substance over form, highlight exceptions, and offer practical guidance. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have consistently ruled that parties cannot file applications for modification, clarification, or recall if they substantively seek a review of the order's merits. Such attempts bypass mandatory procedures like circulation without oral hearing under Order XL Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, or analogous provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
A landmark observation underscores this: Such applications, if they are in substance review applications, deserve to be rejected straight away inasmuch as the attempt is obviously to bypass Order XL Rule 3 relating to circulation of the application in chambers for consideration without oral hearing. By describing an application as one for 'clarification' or 'modification', -- though it is really one of review -- a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or bypass the circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a hearing in the open Court. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. Ram Jethmalani VS Union of India - 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 936
Courts must reject these outright or convert them to proper review petitions. The focus is on substance, not nomenclature—simultaneous or parallel filings that challenge merits are impermissible. Ram Jethmalani VS Union of India - 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 936A. P. S. R. T. C. VS Abdul Kareem - 2007 1 Supreme 471
Once an order attains finality, the court becomes functus officio (having discharged its function), limiting changes to clerical errors or statutory review grounds under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC (e.g., error apparent on the record, new evidence). Modification cannot double as a merits review.
As held: Once a judicial or quasi-judicial decision attains finality, it is subject to change only in proceedings before the appellate court. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 249
Review petitions are tightly circumscribed, and applications in effect and substance an application for review cannot be entertained de hors the statutory embargo contained in Order XL, Rules 3 and 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. Ram Chandra Singh VS Savitri Devi - 2004 5 Supreme 705
Courts deprecate using modification to secure open-court hearings denied in reviews: The petition is in essence and substance seeking for a review under the guise of making an application for direction and modification apparently being fully aware of the normal procedure that such applications for review are not, unless the Court directs, listed for open hearing in Court... The said move is clearly misconceived and nothing but sheer abuse of process. A. P. S. R. T. C. VS Abdul Kareem - 2007 1 Supreme 471Ram Jethmalani VS Union of India - 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 936
Even post-review dismissal, repeating grounds via modification is barred, as second reviews are impermissible under Order XL Rule 5. Delhi Administration VS Gurdip Singh Uban - 2000 6 Supreme 58
True modifications are narrow:- Clerical corrections under Section 152 CPC.- Pre-trial amendments under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, requiring due diligence.
Review, however, targets merits on specific grounds. There's a subtle difference: There is a subtle yet significant difference in the expression 'alter', and 'amend'. The term 'alter' means modification or change without bringing out the change in the body; whereas expression 'amend' has a wider meaning... An amendment always involves an alteration but an alteration does not necessarily amount to amendment. Hathi Singh VS Bheraram - 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 2094
Post-trial, amendments cannot introduce inconsistent cases or substitute for review. M. REVANNA VS ANJANAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. - 2019 2 Supreme 435Hathi Singh VS Bheraram - 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 2094
Judicial trends reinforce these limits. Review is not a right for rehearing: It is well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. Rumpa Ghosh VS International Service Centre - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1263 In that case, the court allowed review for an error apparent but modified orders to permit additional pleadings, emphasizing natural justice without broadening review scope.
Similarly, no party can seek review as a matter of right without satisfying Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: From the above, it is clear that no party can seek review of an order as a matter of right. Before seeking review of an order or Judgment passed, such party seeking review has to satisfy the requirements of Order 47 rule 1 of the CPC. MOHAMED TANVEER S/O AHMED HUSSAIN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2020 Supreme(Kar) 1824 Here, repeating overruled arguments was dismissed as a disguised appeal.
In consumer disputes, liberty to file review/recall/modification was granted but scrutinized for limitation and bona fides. DLF Universal Ltd. VS Uma Shankar Trivedi
The right to review is substantive and survives repeal of enabling rules, but must follow procedure. Rajeev Gupta VS J&K State Information Commission - 2014 Supreme(J&K) 476Rajeev Gupta VS J. &K. State Information Commission - 2014 Supreme(J&K) 62
Even in administrative matters like transfers, personal reasons for modification aren't grounds for judicial review, limiting interference. RAJIB BORDOLOI VS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA - 2015 Supreme(Gau) 552
Under the guise of clarification, one cannot seek review: It is submitted that under the guise of clarification or modification one can not seek review. Jer Rutton Kavasmaneck @ Jer Jawahar Thadani VS Gharda Chemicals - 2012 Supreme(Bom) 2376
While the rule is strict, narrow exceptions exist:- Clerical/Arithmetical Errors: Correctable under Section 152 CPC or CrPC Section 362. U. P. S. R. T. C. VS Imtiaz Hussain - 2005 8 Supreme 488Shashibhushan Tripathi VS State - Crimes (1984)- Bona Fide Recall (Non-Merits): For procedural lapses like counsel error, not merits. B. Mangla vs Director of Education - Delhi (2017)- No Parallel Merits Remedies: Review and appeal may run concurrently with bona fides, but not modification-review hybrids. Amrit Kalita VS Rajani Kanta Kalita - 2019 0 Supreme(Gau) 988- Contractual Contexts: Modification per agreement terms, not judicial review. PSA SICAL Terminals Pvt. Ltd. VS Board of Trustees of V. O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin - 2021 5 Supreme 202
Liberal amendments fail post-trial on merits. Baldev Singh VS Manohar Singh - 2006 5 Supreme 943
To avoid pitfalls:- File standalone review petitions under Order 47 CPC or Supreme Court Rules, adhering to circulation.- For non-merits issues (e.g., clerical), invoke Section 152 CPC explicitly, sans merits arguments.- Courts scrutinize substance—hybrid apps risk rejection, costs, or abuse findings.- Pursue remedies sequentially: review first, then appeal if needed, seeking delay condonation with proof of bona fides.
Understanding these distinctions safeguards your litigation strategy. Stay informed, file correctly, and respect judicial processes for better outcomes.
References:1. Ram Jethmalani VS Union of India - 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 936: Prohibits disguised reviews.2. A. P. S. R. T. C. VS Abdul Kareem - 2007 1 Supreme 471: Abuse of process via guise.3. Ram Chandra Singh VS Savitri Devi - 2004 5 Supreme 705: Merits apps not as modification.4. Delhi Administration VS Gurdip Singh Uban - 2000 6 Supreme 58: Substance determines nature.5. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 249: Functus officio principle.6. Amrit Kalita VS Rajani Kanta Kalita - 2019 0 Supreme(Gau) 988: Sequential remedies.
(Word count: approx. 1050)
#ReviewPetition #CourtOrders #LegalModification
The present application is effectively a “disguised review.” Under Order 47 Rule 1, a review is only maintainable if there is a discovery of new evidence or an “error apparent on the face of the record.” 8. ... Since the matter has already been decided on merits, the parties are debarred from re-agitating the same issues under the modification. This application is an attempt to seek a “second innings” on matters already settled. 6. ... This is an application filed for modification and/....
It is well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. ... written statement in abeyance till modification of the said order. ... , the applicant cannot, at that stage, seek to restore her counter claim. ... In the said order, the application for recalling and/or modification of the order dated March 11, 2013, was ....
By way of modification this Court has virtually vacated the interim order vide its order dtd. 9/10/2019. ... It is this fact which the petitioner, party-in-person Mr.Jayanth Balakrishna seeks to make use of to contend that modification will not include vacating, modification would only include alteration. ... We are of the considered opinion that modification would also include vacating since by such vacating the order the interim order#HL_....
In this regard, it is important to note that in the impugned order dated 01.10.2021, we have recorded that the Appellant/Opposite Party was granted liberty, vide order dated 18.07.2019 to file an application seeking review/recall/modification within one week. ... The Opposite Party challenged the aforesaid finding of this Commission in the Review Application. ... If the Complainants were at all aggrieved by the liberty given to the Opposite Party to ....
The aforementioned reasons for modification amounts to review of the order dated 17.03.2015 in the guise of modification of the order. The modification of any order is permissible only if there are any typographical error. ... The present M.J.C. is filed for modification of order dated 17.03.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3394 of 2014. ... If the modification is sought for reviewing the order, in t....
Khandeparkar learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposed the Review Petition on the ground of maintainability, stating that the prayers sought in the Petition enlarge the scope of the review and lead to modification of the order which is not permissible in review. ... Review Petition is disposed of. No order as to cost. ... The present review is not before the same bench which passed the order since Mr. R.D.Dhanuka J has retir....
Thus, the palpable jurisdictional error as indicated above taints the impugned order in all respects, attracting this Court’s power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ... Thus, the impugned order also does not partake the character of an order passed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure simply because there was no prayer before the court under the said provision nor any application for modification of the status quo order#HL....
Thus, the palpable jurisdictional error as indicated above taints the impugned order in all respects, attracting this Court’s power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ... Thus, the impugned order also does not partake the character of an order passed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure simply because there was no prayer before the court under the said provision nor any application for modification of the status quo order#....
Thus, the impugned order also does not partake the character of an order passed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure simply because there was no prayer before the court under the said provision nor any application for modification of the status quo order was filed as such ... Thus, the palpable jurisdictional error as indicated above taints the impugned order in all respects, attracting this Court’s power of judicial review under Article 227 of t....
The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file appeal or review application. ... The principle behind the provision is that no party should suffer due to mistake of the court and whatever is intended by the court while passing the order or decree must be properly reflected therein, otherwise it would only be destructive to the principle of advancing the cause of justice..... ... This Court w....
From the above, it is clear that no party can seek review of an order as a matter of right. Before seeking review of an order or Judgment passed, such party seeking review has to satisfy the requirements of Order 47 rule 1 of the CPC.
Question of petitioner’s children being in the midst of academic session, also would not arise in view of the fact that the transfer order was issued on 29.10.2014 and effect was sought to be given from 09.04.2015 i.e., after about five months. While the petitioner may have good and genuine personal reasons to seek modification of the transfer order before the authority, the same cannot be a ground of judicial review. Scope of judicial review in such matters, though not excluded, is however limited.
Sub Rule (4) of Rule 36 of the Rules of 2010 on it plain reading would show that it conferred right of review on an aggrieved person more than it conferred power to review its order on the Information Commission. However, review of a decision/order inheres right of a party to seek review, besides inhering the power to review. To seek review of a decision/order essentially is a substantive right of a person against whom order has been passed and such right once accrued is not defeated by repeal of the provision conferring such right. Such a power must be conferred by any law....
Such a power must be conferred by any law either specifically or by necessary implication (Ref. AIR 1970 SC 1273 and 1971 (3) SCC 844 : (AIR 1973 SC 1273) (supra). Sub-rule (4) of Rule 36 of the Rules of 2010 on it plain reading would show that it conferred right of review on an aggrieved person more than it conferred power to review its order on the Information Commission. However, review of a decision/order inheres right of a party to seek review, besides inhering the power to review. To seek review of a decision/order essentially is a substantive right of a person agains....
It is submitted that the nature of the order dated 21st May, 2012 has to be ascertained on the perusal of the order itself. It is submitted that under the guise of clarification or modification one can not seek review. The learned counsel submits that notwithstanding that the appellant had contended that the order was an ad interim order, the fact remains that the respondents did not agree with that interpretation of the appellants. It is submitted that Company Application (85 of 2012) was thus not maintainable and thus injunction order dated 21st May, 2012 could not have b....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
