| Headnote |
SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 - Order XII, Rule 3 – Scope thereof, explained – Filing of applications after disposal of the statutory appeal: Held: Impermissible – A post disposal application for modification and clarification of an order shall lie only in rare cases, where the order passed by the Supreme Court is executory in nature and the directions of the Supreme Court have become impossible to be implemented because of certain subsequent events or developments – After disposal of an appeal / petition, the Supreme Court becomes functus officio and does not retain jurisdiction to entertain any application. [Para 20] SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 – Practice and Procedure – Application projected as an application for clarification, though it was registered as a miscellaneous application – Practice deprecated. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXIII, Rule 1 – Scope thereof, explained. Held: There are two Orders in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which permit review of a judgment or an order of the Supreme Court, Orders XLVII and XLVIII – The former Order, contained in Part IV of the 2013 Rules, relates to “Review of a Judgment” and the latter relates to “Curative Petition” – There is no other provision in the 2013 Rules, whereby a litigant can apply for modification of a judgment or an order of the Supreme Court in a matter which stands finally concluded – By taking out a Miscellaneous Application, the applicant cannot ask for reliefs which were not granted in the main judgment itself. [Para 10] Through this miscellaneous application, the applicant seeks a direction upon the Rajasthan Discoms for making payment of Rs.1376.35 crores – The present application has been captioned as “APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1/APPLICANT (ADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LIMITED)” in the said appeals which stood disposed of by a common judgment of a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered on 31.08.2020 – Review petitions filed against this judgment by the Rajasthan Discoms stood dismissed on 02.03.2021. [Para 2] In the course of hearing, it was projected as an application for clarification, though the same was registered as a miscellaneous application – The reliefs asked for in this application do not refer to any clarification. [Para 9] The applicant had expressed its desire to withdraw the present application on the last date of hearing, i.e., 24.01.2024 – The Supreme Court, however, decided not to permit such simpliciter withdrawal – Even if an applicant applies for withdrawal of an application, in exceptional cases, it would be within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to examine the application and pass appropriate orders – So far as the present proceeding is concerned, an important question of law has arisen as regards jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain an application taken out in connection with a set of statutory appeals which stood disposed of – Judgment of the Supreme Court in Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Others, (2023) 10 SCC 817 deals with this question and the ratio of the said judgment would apply to the present proceeding as well. [Para 19]The Supreme Court becomes functus officio and does not retain jurisdiction to entertain an application after the appeal was disposed of by the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court – This is not an application for correcting any clerical or arithmetical error – Neither it is an application for extension of ime – A post disposal application for modification and clarification of the order of disposal shall lie only in rare cases, where the order passed by the Supreme Court is executory in nature and the directions contained in the judgment may become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments– The factual background of this Application does not fit into that description. [Para 20] SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 - Order XII, Rule 3 read with Rule 6 of Order LV – Filing of applications after disposal of the statutory appeal by invoking inherent powers of the Supreme Court –Held, impermissible. Held: The maintainability of the present application cannot be explained by invoking the inherent power of the Supreme Court either – The applicant has not applied for review of the main judgment – In the contempt action, it failed to establish any wilful disobedience of the main judgment and order – Now the applicant cannot continue to hitchhike on the same judgment by relying on the inherent power or jurisdiction of this Court. [Para 13] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 152 read with Order XII, Rule 3 of the SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 – Rectification of an arithmetic order – permissibility thereof. Held: A miscellaneous application had been filed for modification of the content of judgment dated 1st September 2020 passed in M.A. (D) No. 9887 of 2020 in Civil Appeal Nos. 6328-6399 of 2015 – In the said proceeding, clarification was also sought on the aspect that the judgment did not bar the Union of India from considering and rectifying the clerical/arithmetical errors in computation of certain dues – This was an order permitting rectification of an arithmetic error, which is implicit in Section 152 of the CPC read with Order XII Rule 3 of the 2013 Rules. [Para 18] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 148 read with Section 112 - Power of the Supreme Court to extend time. Held: The power to extend time beyond that fixed by a Court on a legitimate ground is incorporated in Section 148 of the CPC – If the time to do something requires to be extended, it would be within the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to go beyond the maximum period of 30 days prescribed in the aforesaid Section, after sufficient reason is shown – Section 112 of the Code itself provides that nothing contained in the CPC shall affect the inherent powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136 or any other provision of the Constitution. [Para 17] SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 - Order XII, Rule 3 – Imposition of costs on filing of applications after disposal of the statutory appeal. Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the present application and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the applicant to be remitted to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee as it was listed several times. [Para 23] |
