Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2021 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1325 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of miscellaneous application - seeking modification of the judgement - seeking modification of the judgement to the extent that the Applicant may demolish a part of tower T-17 - seeking an order of status quo in respect of Towers 16 & 17 in Emerald Court, Plot No. 4, Sector 93A, NOIDA till final orders are passed in the present application - HELD THAT:- The attempt in the present miscellaneous application is clearly to seek a substantive modification of the judgment of this Court. Such an attempt is not permissible in a miscellaneous application. While Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel has relied upon the provisions of Order LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013, what is contemplated therein is a saving of the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. Order LV Rule 6 cannot be inverted to bypass the provisions for review in Order XLVII in the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The Miscellaneous application is an abuse of the process. The hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is its stability and finality. Judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and weather - A disturbing trend has emerged in this court of repeated applications, styled as Miscellaneous Applications, being filed after a final judgment has been pronounced. Such a practice has no legal foundation and must be firmly discouraged. It reduces litigation to a gambit. Miscellaneous Applications are becoming a preferred course to those with resources to pursue strategies to avoid compliance with judicial decisions. A judicial pronouncement cannot be subject to modification once the judgment has been pronounced, by filing a miscellaneous application. Filing of a miscellaneous application seeking modification/clarification of a judgment is not envisaged in law. Further, it is a settled legal principle that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly. Application dismissed.
|