AKHIL BHARTVARSHIYA MARWARI AGARWAL JATIYA KOSH & ORS. versus BRIJLAL TIBREWAL & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 870 · Decided: 14-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
870                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
AKHIL BHARTVARSHIYA MARWARI AGARWAL JATIYA
KOSH & ORS.
v.
BRIJLAL TIBREWAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 12088-12089 of 2018)
DECEMBER 14, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Practice & Procedure – Appellant No.1-Trust acquired 9797
sq. meters of land for providing housing to weaker sections of the
society – Said area of 9797 sq. meters included the Plot bearing
CTS No.97/A-5/2 – Trust constructed building A-1 on sub-plot carved
out of the said plot – Purchasers-Respondents took possession of
the respective flats – Respondents filed suit inter alia for
directing the Trust and others to execute the Conveyance of Plot
No. A/1 claiming that they were entitled to the Plot area of around
1205 sq. yards (1009.70 sq.meters) – Trial Court decreed the Suit –
First Appeal before the High Court, dismissed vide order dated
04.12.2014 – Thereafter, the High Court on oral application of the
Respondents by way of “Note for speaking to the Minutes” clarified
that the words “2700 sq. feet” appearing in the judgment
dtd. 04.12.2014 should be read as “2700 sq. meters” and directed
the execution of the deed of Conveyance of the land to the extent of
building i.e. 2700 sq. meters – On appeal, held: A “Note for speaking
to Minutes” is required to be entertained only for the limited purpose
of correcting a typographical error or an error through oversight,
which may have crept in while transcribing the original order – It
cannot be considered at par with review application or with an
application for clarification/modification of order – While passing
the order below the “Note for speaking to the Minutes”, the High
Court travelled beyond its jurisdiction in regard to the scope of
deciding a “Note for speaking to the Minutes” and virtually modified
its original order passed in First Appeal – Order passed below the
“Note for speaking to the Minutes” set aside – Even otherwise,
it is not appreciable how the High Court arrived at the figure of
2700 sq. meters – Order passed by the Divisional Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, in proceedings initiated by the Society of flat
purchasers, granting deemed conveyance of area admeasuring
2593.70 sq.meters is modified to the extent of area admeasuring
1009.70 sq.meters only.
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 870
870
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
871
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1.1 While passing order below the “Note for
speaking to the Minutes”, the High Court travelled beyond its
jurisdiction in regard to the scope of deciding a “Note for speaking
to the Minutes”. A “Note for speaking to Minutes” is required
to be entertained only for the limited purpose of correcting a
typographical error or an error through oversight, which may have
crept in while transcribing the original order. Once, the judgment/
order is pronounced and if any party to the same wants any
rectification of any typographical error and any clerical mistake
regarding the date or number, such a party may apply to the
concerned Court for correcting such an error in the judgment/
order.  However, a “Note for speaking to the Minutes” cannot
be considered at par with a review application or in a given case,
with an application for clarification/modification of an order.  While
passing the impugned order below the “Note for speaking to the
Minutes”, the High Court virtually modified its original order
passed in First Appeal.  While passing the impugned order, the
High Court has given further directions as if the High Court was
passing the order on an application for clarification/modification.
Therefore, such a course was not open to the High Court while
deciding a “Note for speaking to the Minutes”.  Since, the High
Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in regard to the scope
of deciding a “Note for speaking to the Minutes”, the impugned
order passed below the “Note for speaking to the Minutes” is
set aside. [Para 12][888-A-E]
1.2 Even otherwise, the impugned orders are not
sustainable at law.  It was the Appeal before the High Court,
preferred by the Appellants herein–original Defendants,
challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court,
by which the Trial Court specifically passed a decree directing
the only Defendant No.1 to convey the title and execute document
in favour of the Society in respect of Suit Building and land to the
extent of Suit Building.  The area of Suit Building was 1009.70
sq. meters.  Against that judgment and d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.