In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court condemned the practice of making oral mentions to seek modifications of judicial orders or judgments under the pretext of a review petition. The Court emphasized that the “stability and finality” of judicial pronouncements are fundamental, citing its decision in Supertech Limited vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association.
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “Judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes, subject to the vagaries of wind and weather.”
Case Background
The observations were made in an appeal concerning a Karnataka High Court order. In this case, nearly three years after the pronouncement of an order, a single judge of the High Court unilaterally modified the order by adding a sentence after an oral mention by one party—without any formal application or notice to the opposing party.
Subsequently, a division bench of the High Court, in an appeal filed by the aggrieved party, clarified the modification made by the single judge. This led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court strongly criticized the appellant’s attempt to seek modification three years after the order was passed, without filing a formal application or serving notice to the respondent.
“It was wholly improper for the appellant to seek modification of the order, three years later, by way of a ‘for being spoken to’ request, without filing an application or notifying the respondent(s),” the Court noted.
Additionally, the bench held that the single judge’s acceptance of the oral request and modification of the order violated legal procedure and the principles of natural justice.
“It was not in accordance with judicial propriety for the learned Single Judge to accept an oral prayer unilaterally made by the appellant and modify ‘paragraph 6’ of the order dated 25.02.2013 by adding an additional sentence on 19.01.2016. Such a procedure is legally impermissible and constitutes a violation of established judicial practice,” the Court ruled.
The bench further deplored the practice of modifying orders through oral mentions and reaffirmed that such attempts to circumvent the legal process of filing a review petition cannot be permitted.
Court’s Decision and Costs Imposed
Denouncing the improper approach adopted by the appellant, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court orders and imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the appellant, payable to the respondents.
Legal Representation
• Senior Advocate S.N. Bhatt appeared for the appellant.
• Senior Advocate Shailesh Madiyal represented the respondent.
Case Title: C.S. Umesh v. T.V. Gangaraju & Others
