'Judicial Verdicts Not Like Sand Dunes' : Supreme Court Deplores Practice Of Making Oral Mentions To Modify Orders/Judgments
deplore such practices of making oral mentions for modification of the orders/judgments in the guise of a review;
In a recent order, the Supreme Court deplored the practice of making oral mentions for modification of the orders/judgments in the guise of a review. The Court reminded that the hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is its "stability and finality", quoting from its judgment in Superteh Limited vs Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association.A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and...
In a recent order, the Supreme Court deplored the practice of making oral mentions for modification of the orders/judgments in the guise of a review. The Court reminded that the hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is its "stability and finality", quoting from its judgment in Superteh Limited vs Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that "judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and weather."
The bench made these observations in a case where a single bench of the Karnataka High Court, almost three years after the pronouncement of an order, added one more line to it after an oral mention was made by one of the parties, that too without notice to the other party. The division bench of the High Court, in appeal by the aggrieved party, clarified the addition made by the single bench. The appeals before the Supreme Court were filed against the High Court order.
At the outset, the Supreme Court observed that "it was wholly improper on the part of the appellant to have sought for modification of the order, three years subsequent to the said order by way of a “for being spoken to” in the absence of any application being made or the same having been served on the respondent(s).
"We also think that it was not in accordance with judicial propriety for the learned Single Judge to have accepted an oral prayer unilaterally made by the appellant herein and modified 'paragraph 6' of the order dated 25.02.2013 by adding the additional sentence extracted above vide order dated 19.01.2016 as if it was an innocuous correction. The said procedure followed was not at all in accordance with law and in total violation of procedure and practice as well as in violation of the principles of natural justice," the Court observed.
"We deplore such practices of making oral mentions for modification of the orders/judgments in the guise of a review and the same cannot be permitted circumventing the legal process of filing a review," the Court added.
Strongly deprecating the practice adopted by the appellant, the Court imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on him to be paid to the respondents, and set aside the High Court orders.
S.N. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, appeared for the appellant. Senior Counsel, Shailesh Madiyal, appeared for respondent.
Case : CS Umesh v TV Gangaraju and others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 268