Supreme Court of India
SATYA JAIN (D) & ORS.versusANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (D) TH. LRS. & ORS.
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 324
- Decided
- 8 May 2013
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- P SATHASIVAM
Holding
An application for modification or clarification of a final Supreme Court order is not permissible under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966; such matters must be pursued as a review and the original direction stands.
Summary
The Supreme Court had decreed specific performance, directing the defendants to execute a sale deed for the suit property at its market price as on the date of the judgment. Several interim applications (I.A.s) were filed thereafter seeking modification, clarification, correction of typographical errors, impleadment of third parties and alteration of the direction to execute the sale deed. The Court held that the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 provide only for a review of a final order and do not permit applications for modification or clarification; such matters must be pursued as a review. Since the facts on which the applicants based their modification claims were either not before the Court at the time of the original judgment or arose subsequently, the applications were not maintainable. The Court corrected the identified typographical errors but otherwise left the original direction unchanged, directing that the trial judge determine the market price and that any aggrieved party may seek remedies available under law.
Issues considered
- Whether an interim application seeking modification or clarification of a final Supreme Court order is maintainable under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
- Whether facts and events that arose after the judgment can be considered for modifying that judgment.
- Whether typographical errors in a Supreme Court judgment can be corrected without a review.
Legislation cited
- Supreme Court Ruless. 1966
Subjects
specific performanceinterim applicationsmodification of judgmentreviewtypographical errorssale deedmarket priceSupreme Court Rulesimplementation of decree
Judgment
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 347
SATYA JAIN (D) & ORS. A
v.
ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (D) TH. LRS. & ORS.
(I.A. Nos. 3-5 AND I.A. No. D37212 of 2013)
IN
(Civil Appeal No. 8653 of 2012) B
MAY 8, 2013
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.)
Interim applications - Judgment of Supreme Court - C
Decreeing suit for specific performance and directing
execution of sale deed - Interim applications seeking
impleadment and clarification of judgment - Held: In some
applications facts on the basis of which modification!
clarification sought, not brought to the notice of the court at D
the time of hearing of appeal or the judgment and in other
applications facts and events forming basis for their claim
occurred subsequent to the judgment - Therefore,
applications are not maintainable - Applicants' endeavour to
reopen the concluded issues and alteration of consequential E
directions not permissible - Parties have the option to seek
remedies for their rights as may be open in law.
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Interim applications - Suit
for specific performance - Decreed by supreme Court in its
final order, setting aside the judgment of High Court - F
Defendants directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the
plaintiffs at the market price as on date of the judgment -
Interim applications and review petition by the plaintiffs -
Seeking modification of the direction for execution of sale
deed at the market price and correction of certain G
typographical errors - Held: An application for modification!
clarification of the judgment passed by Supreme court not
permissible - It is not contemplated by the provisions of
347 H
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 3 S.C.R.
A Supreme Court Rules - The Rules provide only the remedy
of review - The grounds on which the modification/clarification
are sought, were not before the Court at the time of final
hearing, therefore, those facts cannot be legitimate basis for
any modification even if the interim applications are construed
B to be applications for review - The direction in the judgment
of the Court to execute the sale deed at the market price
came to be recorded as per "offer" made on behalf of the
appellants/plaintiffs and there was no material available in this
regard - It is, therefore, clear that the Court did not intend to
C lay down any law of general application while issuing the said
direction - Typographical errors corrected - It is open to the
parties to avail the remedies against the determination of the
market price which would be done by trial court - Review.
Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors.
D (2000) 7 sec 296: 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 496 and A.P.
SRTC and Ors. Vs. Abdul Kareem (2007) 2 SCC 466: 2007
(1) SCR 888 - relied on.
Case Law Reference:
E 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 496 Relied on Para 12
2007 (1) SCR 888 Relied on Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
F I.A. Nos.3-5 & I.A. No. D37212 of 2013 in Civil Appeal
No(s). 8653 of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 31.10.2011 of the
Division Bench of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RFA (OS)
G No. 11 of 1984.
WITH
IA Nos. 12-13 & 14-15 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8675-8676 of
2012.
H
SATYA JAIN (D) THR. LRS. v. ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE 349
. (D) TR.LRS.
Shanti Bhushan, S. Ganesh, M.N. Krishnamani, Anoop A
Choudhary, June Choudhary, Aruna Gupta, M.L. Lahoty,
Pradeep Aggarwal, Lal Pratap Singh, Umesh Pratap Singh,
Brijesh Kumar Singh, Gargi B. Bharali, Ruchi Kohli, R.K.
Sanghi, Arun Maitri, Satyendra Kumar, Rajiv Singh, Prashant
Kumar, Triveni Patekar, Amulya Dhingra, Rajan Singh, Amit B
Singh, Merusagar Samantaray, Sanjay Sharawat, Rajiv Nanda,
N. Annapoorni for the appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
ORDER c
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) D
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 executed by the defendants in favour of E
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 F
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 G
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 impleadmenUclarification/modification/
correction of the judgment dated 3.12.2012, in the
circumstances noted below. H
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A 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
s (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 successor-in-interest of the original defendant
c (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
D 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
E 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;
F (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,
G 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
H 4.11.2010 with consideration in favour of one Fine Properties
SATYA JAIN (D) THR. LRS. v. ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE 351
(D) TR.LRS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
Private Limited disposing of all her rights, shares and interest A
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, B
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. l.M. Lal): and portion C
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 D
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 E
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
unde~- F
6. That, the SECOND-PARTY shall pursue and bear the
entire charge, costs, expenses, fees, etc. regarding the
following:-
R.F.A. (OS) No. 11 of 1984; G
Special Leave Petition (S.L.P.) or equivalent, etc.
before the Supreme Court of India), if subsequently
filed thereafter;
H
-
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A 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:-
B 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
c 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
D Attorney reads as under:-
12. That, the CONSIDERATION-amounts shall not
be returned/refunded, by the FIRST-PARTY to the
SECOND-PARTY.
E 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)."
F
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 to 1D (in Civil Appeal No. 8675-76 of 2012)
to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, at the market
G 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.
H 7. The applicants further/alternatively contend that in view
SATYA JAIN (D) THR. LRS. v. ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE353
(D) TR.LRS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
of the several decisions of this Court referred to in paragraph A
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.
B
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 C
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 terms of the judgment of this Court dated 3.12.2012.
The applicants contend that notice has been issued in the D
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. E
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 F
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 G
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.
H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A 11. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
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
8
procedure governing the consideration ofa 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.
C 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
D prayer for modification/clarific<!tion 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 of2013
the reliefs sought are based on facts and events which have
occurred subsequent to the order of this Court. Not only on the
E 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 prayers made
therein cannot be granted. The applicants seek to reopen
concluded issues and alteration of the consequential directions
F 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.
G 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, S~ri Bhushan has drawn our attention
H
SATYA JAIN (D) THR. LRS. v. ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE 355
(D) TR.LRS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
to some typographical errors in the judgment dated 3.12.2012. A
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 B
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
occurred. Consequently, we correct the said errors in the
following terms.
c
(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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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 to sue through the deceased
plaintiffs 1 and 3 are being referred to hereinafter as the
H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A 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."
B
(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
c 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
D 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,
E 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 concerned the legal representatives
F 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
G 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
H Limited for valuable consideration and therefore, the said
SATYA JAIN (D) THR. LRS. v. ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE 357
(D) TR.LRS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
defendant-respondents are not entitled to any relief much less A
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.
B
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 C
judgment dated 3.12.2012 was rendered. Though the aforesaid
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
property as against the sum of Rs.3.75 lakhs as mentioned in
agreement dated 22.12.1970 has been specifically recorded.
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 H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A 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,
B 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.
C 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
D 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 modification
in the aforesaid t..rection contained in our judgment dated
3.12.2012.
E
21. Accordingly, I.A. Nos. 12-13 of 201~ shall stand
disposed of in the above terms.
K.K.T. IAs disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "specific performance"Sign in to search