CINE EXHIBITION PVT. LTD. versus COLLECTOR, DISTRICT GWALIOR AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 04-01-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 1 S.C.R. 130 
A 
CINE EXHIBITION PVT. LTD. 
v. 
COLLECTOR, DISTRICT GWALIOR AND OTHERS 
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS.5 AND 6 OF 2012 
IN 
B 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 281-282 of 2012) 
c 
JANUARY 04, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Supreme Court Rules, 1966- Order XL and Order XVIII, 
rule 5 - Review power- Under Order XL of the Rules, a review 
application has to first go before the Judges in circulation and 
it is for the Court to consider whether the application is to be 
rejected without an order giving an oral hearing or whether 
D notice is to be issued to the opposite party - Practice of 
overcoming the provision for review under Order XL of the 
Rules by filing application for re-hearing/modification/ 
clarification deprecated by Supreme Court - Held: Many a 
times, applications are fifed for clarification !modification/recall 
E or rehearing not because of any clarification/modification is 
found necessary but because the applicant in reality wants a 
review and also wants hearing by avoiding circulation of the 
same in Chambers ~ A party cannot be permitted to 
circumvent or by-pass this circulation procedure and indirectly 
F obtain a hearing in the open Court - What cannot be done 
directly, cannot be permitted to be done indirectly - Generally 
an application for correction of a typographical error or 
omission of a word etc. in a Judgment or order would lie, but 
a petition which is intended to review an order or Judgment 
G under Order XL VII Rule 1 of CPC and in criminal 
proceedings except on the ground of an error apparent on the 
face of the record, could not be achieved by filing an 
application for clarification !modification/recall or rehearing, 
for which a property constituted review is the remedy. 
H 
130 
CINE EXHIBITION PVT. LTD. v. COLLECTOR, 
131 
DISTRICT GWALIOR 
Sone Lal and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 2 A 
SCC 398 and Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Urban 
and others (2000) 7 SCC 296: 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 496 -
relied on. 
Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban (1999) 7 SCC 
B 
44 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1982) 2 sec 398 
relied on 
2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 496 relied on 
(1999) 1 sec 44 
referred to 
Para 5 
Para 6 
Par;;t 6 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : INTERLOCUTORY 
APPLICATION NOs.5 AND 6 OF 2012 
IN 
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2012. 
c 
D 
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.03.2008 and 
22.09.2010 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at 
E 
Gwailor in Writ Appeal No. 234 of 2007 and Review Petition 
No. 83 of 2010. 
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, B.S. Banthia, Mishra Saurabh, Puneet 
Jain, Sushil Kumar Jain, Anurag Gohil, Ruchika Gohil, Niraj 
F 
Sharma for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
G 
1. These applications have been preferred under Order 
XVIII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (for short 'the 
Rules) against the order of the Registrar dated 28.8.2012, 
alleging that the applications under Order XVIII Rule 5 of the 
Rules lodging the applications for clarification/modification of 
H 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 1 S.C.R. 
A the Judgment dated 11.1.2012 of this Court in Civil Appeal 
Nos.281-282 of 2012 cannot be sustained in law. Applications 
for clarification/modification were filed on 21.2.12 seeking the 
following reliefs: 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(a) 
Clarify/modify the observations contained in 
paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Judgment dated 
11.1.2012 in view of the Notifications being 
produced by the Applicant herein along with the 
present application specially Notification dated 
20.9.1965 issued by the State Government in 
exercise of powers under Section 52 of the Madhya 
Pradesh Town Improvement Trusts Act, 1960; 
(b) 
Clarify/modify operative directions in the Judgment 
dated 11.1.2012 by which it has been held that the 
Gwalior Development Authority did not have 
authority or power to execute the lease in favour of 
the applicant herein; 
(c) 
Direct the Appellant to produce before this Hon'ble 
Court the official records in respect of Scheme 2-
B framed by the then Gwalior Improvement Trust 
including the Notifications and orders issued by the 
State Government in respect thereto photocopies 
of some of which are being produced along with the 
present applications; and 
(d) 
Pass such other order or orders as may be deemed 
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the 
case." 
G 
Applications were rejected holding those applications filed 
would amount to seeki

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