Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. NOS. 3-5 &  I.A.  D.No. 37212 OF 2013  IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  8653   OF 2012

SATYA JAIN (D) & ORS.       ...Appellant(s) Versus

ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (D) TH. LRS. & ORS ... Respondent(s)

With I.A. NOS. 12-13 & 14-15 OF 2013

IN  CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  8675-8676 OF 2012

O R D E R

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Civil  Appeal  No.  8653  of  2012  and  other  connected  

appeals  were  allowed  by  this  Court  by  judgment  and  order  

dated 3.12.2012.  The decree passed by the Appellate Bench of  

the High Court of Delhi in RFA (OS) No. 11/1984 was set aside  

and the suit for specific  performance filed by the plaintiffs 1  

(since deceased), 2 and 3 was decreed in the following terms :-

“30....We are of the further view that the  sale  deed  that  will  now  have  to  be

Page 2

2

executed  by  the  defendants  in  favour  of  the plaintiffs will be for the market price of  the  suit  property  as  on  the  date  of  the  present order. As No material, whatsoever  is available to enable us to make a correct  assessment of the market value of the suit  property as on date we request the learned  trial  judge  of  the  High  Court  of  Delhi  to  undertake  the  said  exercise  with  such  expedition  as  may  be  possible  in  the  prevailing facts and circumstances.

31. All the appeals shall accordingly stand  allowed in terms of our above conclusions  and directions.”

2. I.A. Nos. 3-5, 12-13, 14-15 and D.No. 37212 of 2013 have  

been  filed  seeking  impleadment/clarification/modification/  

correction  of  the  judgment  dated  3.12.2012,  in  the  

circumstances noted below.

3. I.A. Nos. 3-5 have been filed by one Amit Jain, Rahul Jain  

and Smt. Aruna Jain contending that during the pendency of the  

Civil  Appeal  before  this  Court,  out  of  total  suit  property  

measuring 5373 Sq. Yds., two parcels measuring 1500 Sq. Yds.,  

in all, were sold by Ms. Sameen Rushdie Momen (respondent  

No.1 in Civil Appeal No. 8653/2012 and Respondent 1B in Civil  

Appeals No. 8675-76 of 2012) in favour of the applicants. On  

the  said  basis,  the  applicants  seek  impleadment  and  

clarification of the judgment dated 3.12.2012 to mean that the

Page 3

3

successor-in-interest of the original defendant (late Anis Ahmed  

Rushdie) i.e. Ms. Sameen Rushdie Momen, has been left with  

the right of ownership in respect of only 3873 Sq. Yds. of the  

property situated at No. 4, Flag Staff Road, Civil Lines, Delhi.

4. I.A. Nos. 12-13 have been filed by Narender Jain and Arvind  

Jain (original plaintiffs No.2 & 3) seeking the following reliefs :-  

“(a) modify/clarify/correct  Paragraphs  29 and 30 of the judgment  and order  dated  3.12.2012  as  mentioned  in  the  present application;

(b) correct the typographical  errors in the  judgment and order dated 3.12.2012 as  mentioned  in  Paragraph  8  of  this  application;

(c) pass such other  and further  orders as  may be deemed fit  and proper  in  the  facts and circumstances of the present  case.”

5. In the aforesaid I.As. the applicants have, inter alia, stated  

that  Ms.  Sameen  Rushdie  Momen  who  is  the  legal  heir/  

successor-in-interest  of  the  deceased  sole  defendant  Anis  

Ahmed Rushdie (by virtue of a Will dated 9.1.1984 executed by  

Anis Ahmed Rushdie and accepted by the other legal heirs) had  

executed  a  irrevocable  General  Power  of  Attorney  dated  

4.11.2010 with consideration in favour of one Fine Properties

Page 4

4

Private Limited disposing of all her rights, shares and interest  

etc. in the suit property “as on whereon basis” subject to the  

following salient terms:-

“1. That,  the  FIRST-PARTY  agrees  to  absolutely  grant  to  the  SECOND- PARTY all his rights, shares, interest,  liens, registrations clear-titles, etc. in  the  un-encumbered  plot/property/  house bearing no. 4, Flag Staff Road,  Delhi-110054  alongwith:  unauthorized  Occupant/  User  (i.e.  late  Sh.  BHIKU  RAM  JAIN):  and  another  unauthorized-Occupant/  User (i.e. legal-heirs of late Mr. I.M.  Lal):  and portion of the property in  possession of the FIRST-PARTY.

And  the  SECOND  PARTY  has  accepted to be the Attorney for the  purchase acquisition and possessing  of  the  entire-property,  for  the  total  CONSIDERATION of Rs.4,50,00,000/-  (Rupees Four-Crores and Fifty Lacs)  only through this presently executed  and registered G.P.A.

Sufficiency  of  the  above  CONSIDERATION  for  signing  and  executing  of  this  G.P.A.  is  hereby  acknowledged  (payments  and  receipts) by both Parties.

(vii) Para  6  of  the  said  General  Power  of  Attorney reads under:-

  6. That,  the  SECOND-PARTY  shall  

pursue and bear  the entire  charge,  costs,  expenses,  fees,  etc.  regarding  the  following:-

Page 5

5

• R.F.A. (OS) No. 11 of 1984;

• Special  Leave  Petition  (S.L.P.)  or  equivalent,  etc.  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  India),  if  subsequently  filed  thereafter;

Effective  from  the  date  of  execution  and  registration of this G.P.A.

(vii) Para  8  of  the  said  General  Power  of  Attorney  reads as under :-

8. That, on handing over the payment of: full- CONSIDERATION  to  the  FIRST-PARTY,  by  the  SECOND-PARTY,  the  FIRST-PARTY  ceases  to  exercise any rights, interests, liens, titles, etc.  (what-so-ever) in the said plot/property/house;  and the Attorney for the same shall absolutely  stand  in  favour  of  the  SECOND-PARTY  (in  all  respects what-so-ever).’

(viii)  Para 12 of the said General Power of Attorney  reads as under :-

12.   That,  the  CONSIDERATION-amounts  shall  not be returned/refunded, by the FIRST-PARTY  to the SECOND-PARTY.

Also, the amount  paid,  incurred,  etc.  and  expenses,  cost  etc.  and  incidentals  thereto  towards the Registration (eg. Stamp Duty, etc.)  by  the  SECOND-PARTY  shall  also  not  be  returned/refunded/reimbursed).”

6. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the applicants state that  

directions contained in judgment dated 3.12.2012  requiring the  

legal heirs of the deceased sole defendant, i.e., Respondents 1A

Page 6

6

to 1D (in Civil Appeal No. 8675-76 of 2012) to execute the sale  

deed in favour of the plaintiffs, at the market price of the suit  

property  as  on  the  date  of  the  judgment,  would  require  

appropriate  modification  inasmuch  as  the  defendant-

respondents  are not entitled  to the said reliefs having already  

parted with the suit property.

7. The applicants further/alternatively contend that in view of  

the several decisions of this Court referred to in paragraph 5 of  

the I.A., the judgment of the Court directing execution of the  

sale  deed  by  the  defendant-respondents  in  favour  of  the  

plaintiffs  at  the  market  price  as  on  the  date  of  the  said  

judgment  i.e.  3.12.2012  would  also  require  appropriate  

modification.

8. In  addition  to  the  above,  correction  of  certain  

typographical  errors specifically mentioned in paragraph 8 of  

the I.A. have been prayed for by the applicants.

9. I.A. Nos. 14-15 of 2013 have also been filed by plaintiffs 2  

and 3, i.e., Narender Jain and Arvind Jain seeking to bring to the  

notice of the Court that  Fine Properties Private Limited has filed  

an I.A. before the learned Trial Judge of the High Court seeking  

certain orders in respect of the execution of the sale deed in

Page 7

7

terms  of  the  judgment  of  this  Court  dated  3.12.2012.  The  

applicants contend that notice has been issued in the aforesaid  

I.A. by the learned Trial  Judge of the High Court without any  

justifiable  basis  and  the  same  needs  to  be  appropriately  

interfered with by this Court.   In any event, the proceedings in  

the aforesaid I.A.  are required to be stayed till  a  decision is  

rendered by this Court in the present I.As.

10. In addition to the above, I.A. D.No.37212 of 2013 has been  

filed  by  one  Chopra  Marketing  Private  Limited  seeking  

impleadment  in  C.A.  No. 8653 of 2012 on the basis  that  an  

agreement  to  sell  the  suit  property  was  executed  by  and  

between the applicant and persons claiming to be the Attorneys  

of the defendant-respondents pursuant whereto the applicant  

had parted with a sum of Rs. 2 crores as advance payment.  

According  to  the  applicant  it  had  subsequently  come  to  its  

knowledge that  rights  in  the suit  property had already been  

created in favour of the Fine Properties Private Limited as well  

as  the  applicants  in  I.A.  3-5  for  which  reason  a  FIR  dated  

8.12.2012  has  been  filed  by  the  applicant  before  the  

Jurisdictional Police Station, i.e., Economic Offences Wing, Delhi.

11. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

Page 8

8

12. An application for modification/clarification of a final order  

passed by this Court is not contemplated by the provisions of  

the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 which specifically provides the  

remedy of review and also lays down the procedure governing  

the consideration of a review application by this Court.  In fact,  

filing of such applications for modification has been deprecated  

by  this  Court  in  Delhi  Administration  Vs.  Gurdip  Singh  

Uban & Ors.  [(2000) 7 SCC 296] and  A.P. SRTC & Ors.  Vs.  

Abdul Kareem [(2007) 2 SCC 466].  It is in the above backdrop  

that we must proceed to examine the prayers made in the I.As.  

filed.

13. Insofar as I.A. Nos.3-5 are concerned, suffice it will be to  

note that the facts stated therein,  on the basis of which the  

prayer for modification/clarification has been made, were not  

before  the  Court  at  the  time  when  the  judgment  dated  

3.12.2012 was rendered.   In I.A. Nos.14-15 and I.A. D.No. 37212  

of 2013 the reliefs sought are based on facts and events which  

have occurred subsequent to the order of this Court. Not only  

on the basis of the principles of law laid down by this  Court  in  

Gurdip  Singh  Uban   and Abdul  Kareem  (supra),  even  

otherwise, the  said I.As. would not be maintainable and the

Page 9

9

prayers made therein cannot be granted.  The applicants seek  

to reopen concluded issues and alteration of the consequential  

directions which have attained finality.  Such a course of action  

is not permissible and at best the parties may be left with the  

option  of  seeking  such  remedies  as  may  be  open  in  law to  

vindicate any perceived right or claim. We, therefore, dispose of  

the I.A. Nos.3-5, 14-15 and D.No. 37212 of 2013 in the above  

terms.  

14. Insofar  as  I.A.  Nos.12-13  of  2013  are  concerned,  

Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the applicants  

has submitted that an application seeking review of this Court’s  

judgment dated 3.12.2012, to the extent prayed for in the I.As.,  

has  been  filed.   That  apart,  Shri  Bhushan  has  drawn  our  

attention to some typographical errors in the judgment dated  

3.12.2012.  We,  therefore,  deem  it  proper  to  consider  the  

aforesaid I.As. on a slightly different footing.

15. Insofar  as  typographical  errors  and  the  suggested  

corrections mentioned in para 8 of the I.As. are concerned, we  

have examined the contents of the relevant paragraphs of the  

judgment dated 3.12.2012. On such consideration, we find that  

the errors pointed out by the applicants in para 8, indeed, have

Page 10

10

occurred.   Consequently,  we  correct  the  said  errors  in  the  

following terms.   

(i)  Para  2 of the judgment  dated 3.12.2012 be read as  

follows :

“2. The  appellants,  Narendra  Jain  (original  Plaintiff No.2), and Arvind Jain (original Plaintiff No. 3)  also claim to be the Legal heirs and representatives  of  the  original  plaintiff  No.  1  who had  along  with  Narendra  Jain  and  Arvind  Jain  instituted   suit  No.  994/1977 in the High Court of Delhi seeking a decree  of specific  performance in respect of an agreement  dated 22.12.1970 executed by and between original  plaintiff  No.1  (Bhikhu  Ram  Jain)  and  the  original  defendants  Anis  Ahmed  Rushdie  in  respect  of  a  property  described  as  Bungalow  No.4,  Flag  Staff  Road,  Civil  Lines,  Delhi  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the ‘suit property’). The plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are the  sons  of  the  original  plaintiff  No.1.  The  suit  was  decreed  by  the  learned  trial  judge.   The  decree  having  been  reversed  by  a  Division  Bench  of  the  High Court the present appeals have been filed by  the original plaintiff No.2, Narendra Jain and Arvind  Jain (original Plaintiff No.3) and the other appellants  who claim to be vested with a right to sue on the  basis of the claims made by the original plaintiffs in  the  suit.   It  is,  however,  made  clear  at  the  very  outset that though all such persons claiming a right

Page 11

11

to sue through the deceased plaintiffs 1 and 3 are  being referred to hereinafter as the plaintiffs and an  adjudication  of the causes/claims espoused is being  made herein the said exercise does not, in any way,  recognize any right in any such impleaded ‘plaintiffs’  which Question(s) are left  open for decision if  and  when so raised.”

(ii) In paragraph 4 of the judgment dated 3.12.2012 the  date of the filing of the suit mentioned as 3.11.1997  be read as 3.11.1977.

(iii) In paragraph 6 of the judgment dated 3.12.2012 the  date 22.12.1977 be read as 22.12.1970.

(iv) Paragraph  8  of  the  judgment  dated  3.12.2012  be  

replaced by following paragraph :-

“8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree  passed  by  the  learned  trial  Judge,  the  original  defendant had filed an appeal which was allowed by  the impugned judgment dated 31.10.2011. During  the proceedings of the appeal before the High Court  the  original  plaintiff  1  as  well  as  the  original  defendant had died. As already noticed, while the  original  plaintiff  No.2  and  original  plaintiff  No.3  continue  to  remain  on  record  as  appellants,  the  remaining  appellants  claim  to  be  the  legal  heirs/representatives of the deceased plaintiff No.1.  In  so  far  as  the  original  defendant  in  the  suit  is

Page 12

12

concerned  the  legal  representatives  of  the  said  defendant  are  on  record  having  been  so  impleaded.”

16. This will bring the Court to a consideration of the prayer for  

clarification/modification of  the  direction for  execution of  the  

sale deed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs at the  

market price as on 3.12.2012. The first ground on which such  

modification has been sought is that during the pendency of the  

appeals all rights in the suit property have been transferred by  

the   defendant-respondents  to  one  Fine  Properties  Private  

Limited  for  valuable  consideration  and  therefore,  the  said  

defendant-respondents are not entitled  to any relief much less  

the relief of the market value of the property.  Additionally, it  

has been contended that instead of the defendant-respondents  

it  is  the  Registrar  of  the  Delhi  High  Court  who  should  be  

directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs.

17. We have already observed that the facts surrounding the  

alleged transfer of the suit property or the rights over the said  

property  by  the  defendant-respondents  to  Fine  Properties  

Private Limited were not before the Court at the time of hearing  

of  the  appeals  in  question  or  even  at  the  time  when  the  

judgment dated 3.12.2012 was rendered. Though the aforesaid

Page 13

13

facts along with the supporting documents were filed by way of  

an  additional  paper  book no specific  order  of  the  Court  was  

sought  or  granted  to  the  appellants  to  rely  on  the  said  

documents.  In  such  circumstances,  the  aforesaid  facts  now  

sought to be brought on record cannot be a legitimate basis for  

any modification of our judgment even if the I.As. in question  

are  construed  to  be  applications  for  review of  our  judgment  

dated 3.12.2012.

18. The  aforesaid  prayer  for  modification  is  based  on  the  

additional  ground  that  the  same  is  contrary  to  the  several  

decisions of this Court  reference to which has been made in  

para 5 of the I.A.  We do not consider the abovestated ground to  

be a justifiable or sufficient cause to alter our direction(s) for  

execution of the sale deed at the market price inasmuch as the  

said  direction  was  passed  by  us  in  the  peculiar  facts  and  

circumstances of the present case enumerated below.

19. In  paragraph 10 of the judgment  dated 3.12.2012,  the  

statement  made  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  (Plaintiffs)  that  

they are ready and willing to offer an amount of Rs.6 crores for  

the property as against the sum of Rs.3.75 lakhs as mentioned  

in agreement dated 22.12.1970 has been specifically recorded.

Page 14

14

It  is  the  aforesaid  “offer”  made  on  behalf  of  the  

appellants/plaintiffs  that  had led  to the  direction in  question  

inasmuch as no material was available to Court to find out as to  

whether  the offered amount of Rs.6 crores was, in any way,  

indicative of the market value of the property.   It is in such a  

situation that  the  direction  to  execute  the  sale  deed  at  the  

market  price  and  the  request  to  the  learned  Trial  Judge  to  

determine  the  same  came  to  be  recorded  in  the  judgment  

dated 3.12.2012.  It is, therefore, clear that we did not intend to  

lay  down  any  law  of  general  application  while  issuing  the  

direction for execution of the sale deed at the market price as  

on the date of the judgment i.e. 3.12.2012.   

20. The exercise by the learned Trial  Judge in  terms of our  

judgment dated 3.12.2012 is yet to be made.  The aforesaid  

determination,  naturally,  will  be  made  by the  learned  single  

Judge  only  after  affording  an  opportunity  to  all  the  affected  

parties  and  after  taking  into  account  all  relevant  facts  and  

circumstances.   Furthermore,  any  party  aggrieved  by  such  

determination will  be entitled to avail  of  such remedies  that  

may be open in law to such a party.  In view of the above, we do  

not  deem  it  to  be  necessary  to  cause  any  variation  or

Page 15

15

modification  in  the  aforesaid  direction  contained  in  our  

judgment dated 3.12.2012.

21. Accordingly, I.A. Nos. 12-13 of 2013 shall stand disposed of  

in the above terms.

...…………………………J. [P. SATHASIVAM]

.........……………………J. [RANJAN GOGOI]

New Delhi, May 8, 2013.