"Reduces Litigation To Gambit": Supreme Court Deprecates 'Disturbing Trend' Of Filing Miscellaneous Applications Seeking Modification Of Its Judgments

The Supreme Court observed that filing of miscellaneous application seeking modification/clarification of a judgment is not envisaged in law.

The Court observed that there is a disturbing trend of filing such repeated applications after pronouncement of a final judgment. "Such a practice has no legal foundation and must be firmly discouraged. It reduces litigation to a gambit.", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed.

The bench also noted that Miscellaneous Applications are becoming a preferred course to those with resources to pursue strategies to avoid compliance with judicial decisions.

The bench observed thus while dismissing a Miscellaneous Application filed by Supertech Limited. The Supreme Court on 31 August 2021 had upheld an order passed by the Allahabad High Court directing the demolition of twin 40 storey towers in the Emerald Court project of Supertech Ltd in Noida for violation of building norms.

The Miscellaneous application is an abuse of the process

The court said that the attempt in this miscellaneous application is clearly to seek a substantive modification of the judgment of this Court which is not permissible. Referring to Order LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013, the court observed:

"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 court said that a judicial pronouncement cannot be subject to modification once the judgment has been pronounced, by filing a miscellaneous application.

12.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 ["Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum"].

The court added that an expressly laid down mode of doing something necessarily implies a prohibition on doing it in any other way.

13. Further, there is another legal principle which is applicable in the present case. It is that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden . Hence, when a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden . This Court too, has adopted this maxim . This rule provides that an expressly laid down mode of doing something necessarily implies a prohibition on doing it in any other way. 

Observing thus, the court dismissed the Miscellaneous Application.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment