Application To Modify Order Not Review, Only Clerical Or Typographical Errors Can Be Corrected: Supreme Court

The Court set aside the decision of the Bombay High Court, which dismissed a Review Application filed by the Appellant challenging the acceptance of the Respondent’s request for an opportunity to seek the modification and rectification as per the Application for Speaking to the Minutes. The case originated from the Respondent's Appeal under Section 66(2) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act), challenging the Village Panchayat's refusal to issue a construction licence.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that “the High Court has treated the application for modifying an order as if it were exercising review jurisdiction, which is impermissible as such applications may only enable courts to correct clerical or typographical errors. As regards the second impugned order, the appellant submitted that the High Court has not addressed the grievances of the appellant on the merits of the matter but has taken exception to the appellant moving the review application before another bench.”

AOR Sameer Abhyankar appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Govind Jee represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Deputy Director of Panchayats allowed the Respondent's Appeal, directing the Village Panchayat to grant the construction licence. The Appellant challenged this same, claiming the construction would adversely affect the pathway, in an Appeal before the Director of Panchayats under Section 66(7) of the Act. The Director of Panchayats allowed the Appeal.

The Respondent then filed a Revision Application under Section 201-B of the Act. The District Court condoned the delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act and excluding the time the Respondent spent pursuing a withdrawn Writ Petition before the High Court. The Appellant challenged the legality of condonation the delay by filing a Writ Petition before the High Court.

During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the parties reached a settlement. The Respondent stated before the High Court that he was ready to leave 3 meters of pathway access, as directed by the Director of Panchayats' order and was willing to withdraw the Revision Application before the District Court. The High Court disposed of the Petition, recording the Respondent's statement and noting that the Civil Revision Application filed by the Respondent before the District Court stood withdrawn.

Subsequently, the Respondent filed an 'Application for Speaking to the Minutes,' arguing that the Order did not specify the exact location of the access path. The High Court allowed this Application, modifying the earlier Order to include the specification of the access path as reflected in the plan.

The Appellant filed a Review Application against this Order, which the High Court dismissed.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court noted, “To begin with, it is the contention of the appellant that the Application for Speaking to the Minutes dated 14.04.2022 which was filed almost after a month of the order passed by the High Court, it came to be disposed of one year thereafter. Further, the appellant submitted that the plan tendered by the respondent to the High Court showing the access path was never accepted by the appellant and that the plan which is part of the record before the Director of Panchayat is the only true depiction of the site.”

“Having considered the contention of both the parties, we are of the opinion that the interests of justice will be subserved if the appellant is given an opportunity to contest the Application for Speaking to the Minutes. At the same time, the respondent should also have the opportunity to seek the modification and rectification that he has sought in his application,” the Bench held.

Consequently, the Court ordered, “In view of the above, we allow the appeals by setting aside the impugned orders dated 28.02.2023 and 18.01.2024 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 176/2022 in Writ Petition No. 157 of 2019 and in Review Application (Civil) No.10/2023 and restore the application Misc. Civil Application No. 176/2022 to its original number.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Filomena Saldanha Through Power Of Attorney v. Sunil Kohli Represented By His Power Of Attorney & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 595)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Sameer Abhyankar; Advocates Ripul Swati Kumari and Krishna Rastogi

Respondents: AOR Omanakuttan K.K.; Advocates Govind Jee and Vaishak Omanakuttan

Click here to read/download the Judgment