Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Thr. Its Secretary, ... vs M/S. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. on 17 May, 2024
“17. We next come to applications described as
applications for ‘clarification’, ‘modification’ or ‘recall’
of judgments or orders finally passed. We may point
out that under the relevant Rule XL of the Supreme
Court Rules, 1966 a review application has first to go
before the learned Judges in circulation and it will be
49
(2000) 7 SCC 296
Page 76 of 90
for the Court to consider whether the application is to
be rejected without giving an oral hearing or whether
notice is to be issued. […] However, with a view to
avoid this procedure of ‘no hearing’, we find that
sometimes applications are filed for ‘clarification’,
‘modification’ or ‘recall’ etc. not because any such
clarification, modification is indeed necessary but
because the applicant in reality wants a review and also
wants a hearing, thus avoiding listing of the same in
chambers by way of circulation. Such applications, if
they are in substance review applications, deserve to
be rejected straight away inasmuch as the attempt is
obviously to bypass Order XL Rule 3 relating to
circulation of the application in chambers for
consideration without oral hearing. By describing an
application as one for ‘clarification’ or ‘modification’, —
though it is really one of review — a party cannot be
permitted 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. [See in this connection
a detailed order of the then Registrar of this Court in
Sone Lal v. State of U.P. (1982) 2 SCC 398 deprecating
a similar practice.]”.