FILOMENA SALDANHA THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY MR. FRAZIER SALDANHAversusSUNIL KOHLI REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, MR. NAVAL BOWRY, & ORS.

                 [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 03.07.2015. The
        respondent challenged this order in a revision application before the
        District Judge-IV, South Goa2 under Section 201-B of the Panchayat
        Act along with an application to condone the delay of 122 days
        (alleged to be 360 days as per the appellant) in filing the revision.
4.      The District Judge by its order dated 08.01.2019 condoned the delay by
        applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act and excluded the time spent
        by the respondent in pursuing a writ petition before the High Court,
        which was eventually withdrawn. Questioning the legality of condoning
        the delay, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 157 of 2019 before the
        High Court and sought setting-aside of the order dated 08.01.2019.
5.      Pending disposal of the Writ Petition, it appears that there was some
        kind of settlement between the parties. The respondent made a
        statement before the High Court that he is ready to leave access,
        to the extent of 3 meters of pathway as directed by the Director of
        Panchayats in the order dated 03.07.2015. It was also submitted
        that respondent was ready to withdraw the revision application
        pending before the Ld. District Judge. In view of the settlement, the
        High Court passed an order dated 02.03.2022 disposing of the writ
        petition, holding as follows:-


1     Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Panchayat Act’.
2     Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. District Judge’.
1946                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          “7. In fact, the learned Counsel appearing for the
          respondent no. 1 has instructions to state that the said
          respondent is withdrawing the Civil Revision Application
          filed before the District Court.
          8. Once the aforesaid statement is made, nothing remains
          in the present Writ Petition, for the reason that the order
          challenged in the present Writ Petition is an order passed
          by the District Court condoning the delay in filing the
          revision application. When the respondent no 1 has made
          a statement before this Court that he is withdrawing the
          Civil Revision Application itself filed before the District
          Court, obviously, this Court is no longer called upon to
          decide as to whether the delay was properly condoned
          by the District Court or not.
          9. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of by
          recording the statement made on behalf of the respondent
          no 1 that he shall provide access of 3 mts as per clause
          (4) of the judgment and order dated 03.07.2015, passed
          by the Director of Panchayats. On the statement made
          on behalf of respondent no. 1, it is recorded that the Civil
          Revision Application filed by the respondent no. 1 before
          the District Court bearing Civil Revision Application no.
          5 of 2019 stands withdrawn. Accordingly, the said Civil
          Revision Application stands disposed of.
          10. Nothing remains to be examined in the present Writ
          Petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
          as having become infructuous.
          11. It is made clear that the order passed today is restricted
          to the present Writ petition and that if there are any other
          proceedings pending between the parties, they shall
          be decided on their own merits in accordance with law,
          uninfluenced by the order passed today in this Writ Petition.”
6.   Subsequently, respondent filed an ‘Application for Speaking to the
     Minutes’ bearing number Misc. Civil Application No. 176/2022 in
     the same writ petition, stating that the order dated 02.03.2022 did
     not clarify the exact location of the access path. The respondent
     sought a clarification that the said access was to be maintained all
     along the western boundary shown on the plan marked as ‘X’. The
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                             1947

       Filomena Saldanha Through Power of Attorney Mr. Frazier Saldanha v.
     Sunil Kohli Represented by His Power of Attorney, Mr. Naval Bowry, & Ors.


       relevant portion, in fact the only portion which deals with the plea,
       coupled with the prayer in the application are extracted hereinafter
       below for ready reference:-
             “11. That however whilst stating so it was not clarified that
             the access to be maintained was all along the western
             boundary as shown on the plan marked as “X”.
             12. That on account of the non-mention of the above,
             there may arise some confusion at any later point of time.
             13. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the Para 9 of
             the Order dated 02.03.2022 be please clarified so as to
             record that the Applicant shall maintain an access of 3.00
             metres all along the Western boundary of the Property
             as depicted on the Plan marked as X in the Order dated
             27.01.2022.
             14. The Petitioner therefore prays that:
                                    PRAYER
             A.    The Application be allowed.
             B.    The Para 9 of the order dated 02.03.2022 be please
                   clarified to the extent of recording that the access
                   to be maintained is along the western boundary as
                   depicted on the Plan marked as “X” in the Order
                   dated 27.1.2022.
             C.    Any other Order as may be deemed fit and proper
                   by this Hon’ble Court.”
7.     The High Court took up the said application for hearing and by way
       of the first impugned order dated 28.02.2023 allowed the same,
       reasoning that failing this specification there would be no clarity on
       what precisely qualifies as the existing access path. The relevant
       portion of the order passed by the High Court is as follows:
             “6. Simply put, Paragraph 9 of the Order dated 2nd March
             2022 shall now read as under:-
                   “9. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is
                   disposed of by recording the statement made
                   on behalf of the respondent no. 1 that he shall
                   provide access of 3 metres as per clause (4)
1948                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                of the Judgment and Order dated 3.7.2015,
                passed by the Director of Panchayats and as
                reflected in the plan taken on record by this
                Court on 27th January 2022 and marked as ‘X’ for
                identification. On the statement made on behalf
                of Respondent No. 1, it is recorded that the Civil
                Revision Application filed by the Respondent No.
                1 before the District Court bearing Civil Revision
                Application No. 5 of 2019 stands withdrawn.
                Accordingly, the said Civil Revision Applications
                stands disposed of.”
          7. The above Application is disposed of in the aforesaid
          terms. However, there shall be no Orders as to costs.
          8. It is needless to clarify that this Order shall not in any
          way prejudice the proceedings filed by the Petitioners in
          Special Civil Suit No. 10 of 2013. Any Orders that are to
          be passed in that Suit shall be based on their own merits
          uninfluenced by the Orders passed in the present Writ
          Petition.
          9. This Order will be digitally signed by the Private
          Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned
          will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed
          copy of this order.”
8.   As against the above extracted order disposing of the writ petition,
     by accepting the respondent’s modification as per the ‘Application
     for Speaking to the Minutes,’ the appellant filed a Review Application
     (Civil) No. 10 of 2023, which came to be dismissed by the second
     impugned order before us.
9.   We have heard the submissions made by the ld. counsels appearing
     for the parties. To begin with, it is the contention of the appellant that
     the Application for Speaking to the Minutes dated 14.04.2022 which
     was filed almost after a month of the order passed by the High Court,
     it came to be disposed of one year thereafter. Further, the appellant
     submitted that the plan tendered by the respondent to the High Court
     showing the access path was never accepted by the appellant and that
     the plan which is part of the record before the Director of Panchayat
     is the only true depiction of the site. Furthermore, the High Court has
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                          1949

      Filomena Saldanha Through Power of Attorney Mr. Frazier Saldanha v.
    Sunil Kohli Represented by His Power of Attorney, Mr. Naval Bowry, & Ors.


      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. As
      regards the second impugned order, the appellant submitted that
      the High Court has not addressed the grievances of the appellant
      on the merits of the matter but has taken exception to the appellant
      moving the review application before another bench.
10. Having considered the contention of both the parties, we are of the
    opinion that the interests of justice will be subserved if the appellant
    is given an opportunity to contest the Application for Speaking to
    the Minutes. At the same time, the respondent should also have
    the opportunity to seek the modification and rectification that he has
    sought in his application.
11. In view of the above, we allow the appeals by setting aside the
    impugned orders dated 28.02.2023 and 18.01.2024 passed in Misc.
    Civil Application No. 176/2022 in Writ Petition No. 157 of 2019 and
    in Review Application (Civil) No.10/2023 and restore the application
    Misc. Civil Application No. 176/2022 to its original number. The said
    application shall be taken up and disposed of on its own merits
    after giving an opportunity to both the parties, keeping in mind the
    scope of such applications as pronounced by this Court in Akhil
    Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh & Ors v. Brijlal
    Tibrewal & Ors..3 We make it clear that we have not expressed
    any opinion on the merits of the matter. It is for the High Court to
    consider and dispose of the application on its own merit after giving
    an opportunity to both the parties.

      Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



      †
          Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain




3    2018 INSC 1215 : [2018] 14 SCR 870.