COLLECTOR DIST.GWALIOR Vs CINE EXHIBITORS P.LTD.
Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,DIPAK MISRA
Case number: C.A. No.-000281-000282 / 2012
Diary number: 797 / 2011
Advocates: Vs
SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOs.5 AND 6 OF 2012
Cine Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. .... Applicant(s)
Versus
Collector, District Gwalior and others ....Respondents
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.281-282 OF 2012
Collector, District Gwalior and another .....Appellants
Versus
Cine Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. & Another .....Respondents
O R D E R
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
Page 2
2
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 Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2012
cannot be sustained in law. Applications for
clarification/modification were filed on 21.2.12 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
Page 3
3
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.”
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.
Page 4
4
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
Page 5
5
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 for review under Order XL of the Rules by filing an
application for re-hearing/ modification/ clarification has to be
Page 6
6
deprecated. Registrar of this Court earlier in an application for re-
hearing took the same stand in the year 1981. This Court
dismissed a Criminal Appeal No.220 of 1974 on 3.4.1981.
Appellant therein filed an application for re-hearing of the appeal
on 20.4.1981. The counsel was informed by the Registry that
since appeal had been disposed of after hearing the counsel for
the parties, no application for re-hearing would lie and, if he so
advised, could file a review petition under the Rules.
Consequently, the application was not registered. The order of
the Registrar is reported in Sone Lal and others v. State of
Uttar Pradesh (1982) 2 SCC 398.
6. The above mentioned order of the Registrar was later
endorsed by this Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip
Singh Uban and others (2000) 7 SCC 296. In that case Civil
Appeal Nos.4656-57 of 1999 were allowed by a two Judge Bench
Judgment of this Court reported in Delhi Administration v.
Gurdip Singh Uban (1999) 7 SCC 44 and the appeals of Delhi
Page 7
7
Administration and Delhi Development Authority were allowed.
The appellant in Civil Appeal No.4656 of 1999 was the Delhi
Administration while the appellant in CA No.4657 of 1999 was
Delhi Development Authority. After the appeals were allowed by
this Court on 20.8.1999, Review Petition Nos.1402-03 of 1999
were filed in the two appeals by Gurdip Singh Uban and they were
dismissed in circulation by a reasoned order on 24.11.1999.
Another Review Petition No.21 of 2000 filed by another person
was not listed on that date. IA No.3 of 1999 was later listed along
with IA Nos.4 & 5 filed by Gurdip Singh Uban on 23.12.1999.
Gurdip Singh Uban, it may be noted had filed IA Nos.4 & 5 in spite
of dismissal of his review petition on 24.11.1999. IA Nos.4 & 5
were listed before the Court and a preliminary objection was
raised stating that the applications couched as applications for
“clarification”, modification” or for “recall” could not be
entertained once the review petitions filed by the applicant were
dismissed. This Court examined the question in detail in Gurdip
Singh Uban (supra) and held as follows:
Page 8
8
“16. At the outset, we have to refer to the practice of filing review applications in large numbers in undeserving cases without properly examining whether the cases strictly come within the narrow confines of Rule XL of the Supreme Court Rules. In several cases, it has become almost everyday experience that review applications are filed mechanically as a matter of routine and the grounds for review are a mere reproduction of the grounds of special leave and there is no indication as to which ground strictly falls within the narrow limits of Rule XL of the Rules. We seriously deprecate this practice. If parties file review petitions indiscriminately, the time of the Court is unnecessarily wasted, even it be in chambers where the review petitions are listed. Greater care, seriousness and restraint is needed in filing review applications.
17. We next come to applications described as applications for “clarification”, “modification” or “recall” of judgments or orders finally passed. We may point out that under the relevant Rule XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 a review application has first to go before the learned Judges in circulation and it will be for the Court to consider whether the application is to be rejected without giving an oral hearing or whether notice is to be issued. Order XL Rule 3 states as follows:
“3. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, an application for review shall be disposed of by circulation without any oral arguments, but the petitioner may supplement his petition by additional written arguments. The Court may either dismiss the petition or direct notice to the opposite party....”
Page 9
9
In case notice is issued, the review petition will be listed for hearing, after notice is served. This procedure is meant to save the time of the Court and to preclude frivolous review petitions being filed and heard in open court. However, with a view to avoid this procedure of “no hearing”, we find that sometimes applications are filed for “clarification”, “modification” or “recall” etc. not because any such clarification, modification is indeed necessary but because the applicant in reality wants a review and also wants a hearing, thus avoiding listing of the same in chambers by way of circulation. 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. (See in this connection a detailed order of the then Registrar of this Court in Sone Lal v. State of U.P. deprecating a similar practice.)
18. We, therefore, agree with the learned Solicitor General that the Court should not permit hearing of such an application for “clarification”, “modification” or “recall” if the application is in substance one for review. In that event, the Court could either reject the application straight away with or without costs or permit withdrawal with leave to file a review application to be listed initially in chambers.
Page 10
10
19. What we have said above equally applies to such applications filed after rejection of review applications particularly when a second review is not permissible under the Rules. Under Order XL Rule 5 a second review is not permitted. The said Rule reads as follows:
“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.”
20. We should not however be understood as saying that in no case an application for “clarification”, “modification” or “recall” is maintainable after the first disposal of the matter. All that we are saying is that once such an application is listed in Court, the Court will examine whether it is, in substance, in the nature of review and is to be rejected with or without costs or requires to be withdrawn with leave to file a review petition to be listed in chambers by circulation. Point 1 is decided accordingly.
7. We are of the view that the ratio laid down in the above-
mentioned Judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case as
well. 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
Page 11
11
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. Review power
is provided under Order XL of the Rules, which reads as follows:
“1. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code, and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. 2. An application for review shall be by a petition, and shall be filed within thirty days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. It shall set out clearly the grounds for review. 3. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court an application for review shall be disposed of by circulation without any oral arguments, but the petitioner 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. 4. Where on an application for review the Court reverses or modifies its former decision in the case on
Page 12
12
the ground of mistake of law or fact, the Court, may, if it thinks fit in the interests of justice to do so, direct the refund to the petitioner of the court-fee paid on the application in whole or in part, as it may think fit. 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.”
8. Under Order XL of the Rules a review application has first to
go before learned Judges in circulation and it will be for the Court
to consider whether the application is to be rejected without an
order giving an oral hearing or whether notice is to be issued to
the opposite party. Many a times, applications are filed for
clarification/modification/recall or rehearing not because of any
clarification/modification is found necessary but because the
applicant in reality wants a review and also wants hearing by
avoiding circulation of the same in Chambers. We are of the view
that a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or by-pass this
circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a hearing in the open
Page 13
13
Court, what cannot be done directly, cannot be permitted to be
done indirectly.
9. We are, therefore, of the view that the Registrar has rightly
ordered for lodgment of the applications. However, we make it
clear that the dismissal of these applications would not stand in
the way of the applicants in filing review petitions with additional
documents, stated to have been suppressed by the opposite side,
which would be dealt with in accordance with law. The
interlocutory applications are dismissed.
………………………..J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)
……………………….J. (Dipak Misra)
New Delhi, January 4, 2013