Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has directed its Registry not to circulate any miscellaneous applications in disposed cases unless supported by a sworn declaration. The declaration must assert that the application is essential due to the executory nature of the original order, which has become unimplementable owing to subsequent events or developments.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan expressed serious concern over filing of the miscellaneous application on a daily basis in disposed of matters. "This court has no jurisdiction to entertain such pleas and breach of this principle would lead to confusion and chaos," it said.

"These miscellaneous applications which are being filed on daily basis have something to do with fresh cause of action that might have arisen with a very remote connection with the main proceedings. No miscellaneous application is maintainable in a writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events," the bench said.

In fact, the bench emphasised, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain such application as no proceedings could be said to be pending before it.

"When proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of the writ petition be it under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court, it is not open to the court to re-open the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action. If this principle is not followed, there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of the proceedings would cease to have any meaning," the bench said.

In the recent past, the court said, a co-ordinate bench of the court observed in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, and Others Vs Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd and Another (2024) that the court has become functus officio and it does not retain jurisdiction to entertain an application...A post disposal application for modification and clarification of the order of disposal shall lie only in rare cases, where the order passed by this court is executory in nature and the directions of the court may become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments, the top court had then held. 

"Thus, this court made it abundantly clear that a miscellaneous application filed in a disposed of proceedings would be maintainable only for the purpose of correcting any clerical or arithmetical error. The court further clarified that a post disposal application for modification or clarification of the order would lie only in rare cases where the order passed by this court is executory in nature and the directions of the court may have become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments," the bench said.

Acoordingly, court directed the Registry against circulating any miscellaneous application filed in a disposed of proceedings.

"The Registry shall insist from every applicant who intends to file any miscellaneous application in a disposed of proceedings for such a declaration on solemn affirmation," the bench asserted.

Court rejected a miscellaneous application filed by Ajay Kumar Jain, petitioner in person, in a writ petition disposed of on August 6, 2021. The petitioner had sought a direction among others to the District Judge to dispose of the proceedings which had been initiated by him for breach of the order which enured to his benefit.

By his application, the petitioner brought to the court's notice that in pursuance of the directions issued by this court, his contempt application was heard and the same was allowed. Against such order, the contemnor went in appeal and his appeal was also dismissed on November 11, 2024.

His grievance was that despite all the developments, he has not been able to achieve any positive result in his litigation.

"Today, he apprehends threat to himself and his family members at the end of the contemnor. This miscellaneous application on the face of it is not maintainable in law. It is high time that this court says something on the practice of the litigants filing miscellaneous applications in disposed of proceedings and that too after a period of 5 years, 7 years, 10 years," the bench said.

The court opined if the applicant appearing in-person has an apprehension that the contemnor is likely to cause any harm to him or any of his family members, it is open for him to file a writ petition before the territorial High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and seek appropriate relief in that regard.

"If any writ petition is filed by the applicant before the High Court, seeking protection the High Court may look into it in accordance with law at the earliest," the bench ordered.

Case Title: Ajay Kumar Jain Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr