TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2004 - N. Santosh Hegde and S.B. Sinha, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri G.C. Bharuka, Sr. Advocate, Devashish Bharuka, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Advocates with him, for the Appellant. S/Shri P.S. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Rajeev Shekhar Dwivedi, T.H. Vardhan, Amitesh Chandra Mishra, Dhruv Kumar Jha, S.B. Upadhyay, Ajay Choudhary, S.R. Setia, Amit Kumar and R.N. Keshwani, Advocates with him, for the Respondent. [Order]. An application purported to be for clarification and/or modification of a judgment and order dated 9th October, 2003 has been filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 of the Appeal contending that certain factual errors had crept in the said judgment which could not be pointed as they were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed touching upon the merit of the judgment. 5. Mr. P.S. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that his client would be satisfied if this Court takes notice of the errors in the pleadings of the appellant as a result whereof the said mistakes have crept in the judgment and, thus, the applicants (Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in the appeal) should be given the liberty to place the correct facts before the High Court. Mr. Mishra would contend that such a direction can be issued by this Court in ex debito justitiae. Reliance, in this regard, has been placed on Samarendra Nath Sinha Anr. v. Krishna Kumar Nag [(1967) 2 SCR 18], B. Shivananda v. Andhra Bank Ltd. and Another [(1994) 4 SCC 368] and Jayalakshm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner may supplement his petition by additional written arguments. The Court may either dismiss the petition or direct notice to the opposite-party. An application for review shall as far as practicable be circulated to the same Judge or Bench of Judges that delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. 5. Where an application for review of any judgment and order has been made and disposed of, no further application for review shall be entertained in the same matter. LXVII Rule 6. Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 8. A bare perusal of the purported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The applicants herein did not appear at the time of hearing. They, as noticed hereinbefore, have not to contend that there exist errors in the judgment which are apparent on the face of the records except the typographical. The prayer of the applicant is that apart from the corrections which are required to be made in the judgment as noticed hereinbefore the merit of the matter may also be considered, inter alia, with reference to the pleadings of the parties. Such a course of action, in our opinion is not contemplated in law. If there exist errors apparent on the face of the record an application for review would be maintainable but an application for clarification and/or modification cannot be entertained unless it is shown that the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or a Division Bench observed : 2. We are satisfied that the application does not seek any clarifications. It is an application seeking in substance a review of the judgment. By disguising the application as one for clarification , the attempt is to seek a hearing in the open court avoiding the procedure governing the review petitions which, as per the rules of this Court, are to be dealt with in chambers. Such an attempt on the part of the applicant has to be deprecated. 15. Recently in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2004) 5 SCC 353] referring to Order XL, Rule 3, this Court opined : 6. As noted by a Constitution Bench of this Court in P.N. Eswara Iyer v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, [1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission and to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention is permissible as has been held in Samarendra Nath Sinha (supra). But in this case nothing has been shown as to why inherent power of this Court is required to be exercised except for correcting the typographical errors. 18. B. Shivananda (supra) also relates to a case where clerical or arithmetical mistakes have occurred in the judgment and decree which could be corrected. 19. In Jayalakshmi Coelho (supra) whereupon Mr. Misra relied upon this Court observed : 13. So far as the legal position is concerned, there would hardly be any doubt about the proposition that in terms of Section 152 CPC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
