LexFILOMENA SALDANHA THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY MR. FRAZIER SALDANHA versus SUNIL KOHLI REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, MR. NAVAL BOWRY, & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1943 : 2025 INSC 595 Filomena Saldanha Through Power of Attorney Mr. Frazier Saldanha v. Sunil Kohli Represented by His Power of Attorney, Mr. Naval Bowry, & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s). 5674-5675 of 2025) 29 April 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the orders passed by the High Court allowing the Application for Speaking to Minutes and dismissing the review petition. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Application for Speaking to the Minutes – Scope of – Dispute pertaining to access of pathway – Settlement between the parties and respondent ready to leave access of pathway and accordingly, order passed by the High Court – Subsequently, respondent filed an ‘Application for Speaking to the Minutes’ seeking clarification that access had to be maintained all along the western boundary wall – High Court allowed the application – Thereagainst, the appellant filed review application, which was dismissed – Correctness: Held: High Court 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 – Interests of justice would be subserved if the appellant is given an opportunity to contest the Application for Speaking to the Minutes – At the same time, respondent also to have the opportunity to seek the modification and rectification that he has sought in his application – Impugned orders set aside – Application for Speaking to the Minutes restored to its original number – Said application to be taken up and disposed of on its own merits after giving an opportunity to both the parties – Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 – ss.66(2), 66(7), 201-B. [Paras 10, 11] * Author 1944 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh & Ors. v. Brijlal Tibrewal & Ors., 2018 INSC 1215 : [2018] 14 SCR 870 – relied on. List of Acts Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994; Limitation Act, 1963. List of Keywords Application for Speaking to the Minutes; Review application; Deputy Director of Panchayats; Director of Panchayats; Village Panchayat; Construction license; Dispute pertaining to access of pathway; Review application; Exercising review jurisdiction; Clerical or typographical errors; Interests of justice. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 5674-5675 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2023 and 18.01.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in MCA No. 176 of 2022 and CAR No. 10 of 2023, respectively Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Sameer Abhyankar, Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Krishna Rastogi. Advs. for the Respondent: Govind Jee, Omanakuttan K. K., Inder Singh Adhikari, Ms. Rambha Singh, Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Vaishak Omanakuttan. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. 1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are directed against the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in an [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1945 Filomena Saldanha Through Power of Attorney Mr. Frazier Saldanha v. Sunil Kohli Represented by His Power of Attorney, Mr. Naval Bowry, & Ors. Application for Speaking to Minutes in Misc. Civil Application No. 176/2022 in Writ Petition No. 157 of 2019; and order dated 18.01.2024 of the High Court in Review Application (Civil) No. 10/2023 dismissing the review petition. 3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows. The respondent filed an appeal under Section 66(2) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 19941 before the Deputy Director of Panchayats challenging the Village Panchayat’s refusal to issue a construction licence in his favour. This licence would have allowed the respondent to raise a construction on his land, which is adjacent to the land of the appellant. The Deputy Director of Panchayats allowed the appeal by an order dated 29.01.2013 and directed the Village Panchayat to grant the construction licence. Claiming that this construction would adversely affect the pathway, the appellant challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Panchayats by way of an appeal before the Director of Panchayats under Section 66(7) of the Panchayat Act. The appeal came to be allowed by an order dated 03.07.201
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.