Summary
The Court dismissed Supertech’s miscellaneous application seeking to replace demolition of two towers with retention of one and partial demolition of the other. That relief would substantively alter the final judgment and was a review in substance, despite its description as modification. The inherent-powers provision could not be used to bypass the prescribed review procedure. The application was held an abuse of process, leaving the earlier demolition judgment undisturbed.
Issues
- Whether a miscellaneous application could replace the final demolition directions with a materially different proposal.
- Whether the Court’s inherent powers permitted bypassing the procedure prescribed for review.
Provisions considered
- Order LV Rule 6; Order XLVII, Supreme Court Rules, 2013The saving of inherent powers could not be inverted to circumvent the review provisions. Substance rather than the application’s label governed the required procedure. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
Held
- The final judgment had affirmed demolition of both towers. Retaining one tower and slicing part of the other would replace that substantive direction, so the proposed modification was in the nature of review. (¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 4, 7)
- Applications styled as clarification, modification or recall cannot be used as disguised review applications to evade the prescribed procedure, including consideration by circulation. Finality of judgments and compliance with the specified procedural route required rejection of that attempt. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 12, 13)
- Order LV Rule 6 preserves inherent powers for the ends of justice and prevention of abuse; it did not authorise bypassing Order XLVII here. The miscellaneous application was an abuse of process and was dismissed. The proposed alternative demolition arrangement was not approved. (¶¶ 11, 14, 15)
Result
Miscellaneous application dismissed; the earlier judgment and its demolition directions remain undisturbed.