LexSATYA JAIN (D) & ORS. versus ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (D) TH. LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 347 SATYA JAIN (D) & ORS. A v. ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. (I.A. Nos. 3-5 AND I.A. No. D37212 of 2013) IN (Civil Appeal No. 8653 of 2012) B MAY 8, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.) Interim applications - Judgment of Supreme Court - C Decreeing suit for specific performance and directing execution of sale deed - Interim applications seeking impleadment and clarification of judgment - Held: In some applications facts on the basis of which modification! clarification sought, not brought to the notice of the court at D the time of hearing of appeal or the judgment and in other applications facts and events forming basis for their claim occurred subsequent to the judgment - Therefore, applications are not maintainable - Applicants' endeavour to reopen the concluded issues and alteration of consequential E directions not permissible - Parties have the option to seek remedies for their rights as may be open in law. Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Interim applications - Suit F for specific performance - Decreed by supreme Court in its final order, setting aside the judgment of High Court - Defendants directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs at the market price as on date of the judgment - Interim applications and review petition by the plaintiffs - Seeking modification of the direction for execution of sale deed at the market price and correction of certain G typographical errors - Held: An application for modification! clarification of the judgment passed by Supreme court not permissible - It is not contemplated by the provisions of 347 H 348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 3 S.C.R. A Supreme Court Rules - The Rules provide only the remedy of review - The grounds on which the modification/clarification are sought, were not before the Court at the time of final hearing, therefore, those facts cannot be legitimate basis for any modification even if the interim applications are construed B to be applications for review - The direction in the judgment of the Court to execute the sale deed at the market price came to be recorded as per "offer" made on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs and there was no material available in this regard - It is, therefore, clear that the Court did not intend to C lay down any law of general application while issuing the said direction - Typographical errors corrected - It is open to the parties to avail the remedies against the determination of the market price which would be done by trial court - Review. Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. D (2000) 7 sec 296: 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 496 and A.P. E SRTC and Ors. Vs. Abdul Kareem (2007) 2 SCC 466: 2007 (1) SCR 888 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 496 2007 (1) SCR 888 Relied on Relied on CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Para 12 Para 12 F I.A. Nos.3-5 & I.A. No. D37212 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No(s). 8653 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 31.10.2011 of the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RFA (OS) G No. 11 of 1984. H WITH IA Nos. 12-13 & 14-15 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8675-8676 of 2012. SATYA JAIN (D) THR. LRS. v. ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE 349 . (D) TR.LRS. Shanti Bhushan, S. Ganesh, M.N. Krishnamani, Anoop A Choudhary, June Choudhary, Aruna Gupta, M.L. Lahoty, Pradeep Aggarwal, Lal Pratap Singh, Umesh Pratap Singh, Brijesh Kumar Singh, Gargi B. Bharali, Ruchi Kohli, R.K. Sanghi, Arun Maitri, Satyendra Kumar, Rajiv Singh, Prashant Kumar, Triveni Patekar, Amulya Dhingra, Rajan Singh, Amit B Singh, Merusagar Samantaray, Sanjay Sharawat, Rajiv Nanda, N. Annapoorni for the appearing parties. The Order of the Court was delivered by ORDER RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. Civil Appeal No. 8653 of 2012 and other connected appeals were allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 3.12.2012. The decree passed by c the Appellate Bench of the High Court of Delhi in RFA (OS) D No. 11/1984 was set aside and the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiffs 1 (since deceased), 2 and 3 was decreed in the following terms :- "30 .... We are of the further view that the sale deed that will now have to be executed by the defendants in favour of E the plaintiffs will be for the market price of the suit property as on the date of the present order. As No material, whatsoever is available to enable us to make a correct assessment of the market value of the suit property as on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.