A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ORS. versus ABDUL KAREEM

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 888 · Decided: 12-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ORS. 
v. 
ABDUL KAREEM 
JANUARY 12, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 137-Review application, in 
guise of application for clarification-Maintainability of-Held, not 
maintainable-Supreme Court Rules, 
1966~0rder XL-Practice and 
Procedure-Abuse of process of Court. 
By the present application, the applicant who was Respondent in the 
concerned civil appeal, has prayed for clarification of the judgment passed 
by this Court in the said appeal. 
The question which arises for consideration is whether in the guise 
of application for clarification, review of the earlier judgment is being 
sought for and hence such an application cannot be maintained and is liable 
to be rejected. 
Dismissing the IA, the Court 
HELD : 1. The petition is in essence and substance seeking for a 
review under the guise of making an application for clarification apparently 
being fully aware of the normal procedure that such applications for review 
are not, unless Court directs, listed for open hearing in court, at the initial 
stage at least, before ordering notice to the other side and could be 
summarily rejected, if found to be of no prima facie merit. The move 
adopted itself is unjustified, and could not be countenanced also either by 
way of review or in the form of the present application as well. The nature 
of relief sought, and the reasons assigned are such that even under the 
pretext of filing a review such an exercise cannot be undertaken, virtually 
G 
for re-hearing and alteration of the judgment because it is not to the liking 
of the party, when there is no apparent error on record whatsoever to call 
for even a review. The said move is clearly misconceived and nothing but. 
sheer abuse of process, which of late is found to be on the increase, more 
for selfish reasons than to further or strengthen the cause of justice. The 
H 
device thus adopted, being otherwise an impermissible move by mere 
888 
-
~-
-
A.P.S.R.T.C. & ORS. v. ABDUL KAREEM [PASA Y AT, J.] 
889 
change in nomenclature of the applications does not change the basic 
A 
nature of the petition. Wishful thining virtually based on surmises too, at 
any rate is no justification to adopt such undesirable practices. If at all it 
should be for weightly and substantial reasons. [Para 5] 890-B-El 
2. By describing an application as one for "clarification" or 
"-nodification" though it is really one of review a party cannot be permitted 
B 
to circumvent or bypass the circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a 
hearing in the open Court. What cannot be done directly cannot be 
permitted to be done indirectly. The Court should not permit hearing of 
such an application for "clarification", "modification" or "recall" if the 
application is in substance a clever move for review. [Para 7] (891-A-B] 
C 
Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors., [2000] 7 SCC 
296, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A 3 of2006 in Civil Appeal No. 
n~~wm. 
D 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2002 of the High Court 
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.A. No. 1209/2002. 
Ms. K. Radha Rani, P. Vijay Kumar and D. Mahesh Babu, for the 
Appellants. 
E 
P.S. Narasimha (for Mis P.S.N. & Co.) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
_,, 
. Dr. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. : I. By this application, the applicant who 
f 
• 
was the respondent in the appeal has prayed for clarification of the order 
dated 2.8.2005 in the concerned Civil Appeal No. 7797 of2003. 
2. It is stated that the applicant (respondent in the civil appeal) is living 
in penury, has no means to pay back the amount which is sought to the 
recovered. The pension amount has already being attached and the balance 
is now being sought to be recovered. 
".-
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation on the other hand 
submitted that in the guise of application for clarification, review of the 
judgment is being sought for. 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
890 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] I S.C.R 
4. By order dated 2nd August, 2005 it was held that the learned Single 
judge and the Division Bench had erroneously granted the benefits of 
increment notionally to the applicant during the period when he was out of 
service. 
5. The petition is in essence and substance seeking for a review under 
the guise of making an application for clarification apparently being fully 
aware of the normal procedure that suc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.