Filomena Saldanha through Power of Attorney Mr. Frazier Saldanha versus Sunil Kohli represented by his Power of Attorney, Mr. Naval Bowry, & Others | Supreme Court of India

1. Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL No(s). _ OF 2025 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No(s). _ OF 2025 (DIARY NO. 10634 OF 2024)
(The document does not provide the specific assigned Civil Appeal or SLP numbers for 2025, only the Diary number from which they arise. The blanks for appeal and SLP numbers are as per the original document.)

2. Case Title: FILOMENA SALDANHA THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY MR. FRAZIER SALDANHA VERSUS SUNIL KOHLI REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, MR. NAVAL BOWRY, & ORS.

3. Headnote: The Supreme Court set aside orders of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa, which had allowed an “Application for Speaking to Minutes” thereby modifying a previous consent order regarding an access path, and an order dismissing the subsequent review petition. The Court held that the interests of justice required that the appellant be given an opportunity to contest the Application for Speaking to Minutes. The matter concerning the “Application for Speaking to Minutes” was restored to its original number before the High Court for fresh disposal on merits after affording an opportunity to both parties, keeping in mind the scope of such applications as per Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh & Ors v. Brijlal Tibrewal & Ors. (2018 INSC 1215).

4. Background and Facts:
The dispute originated from the Village Panchayat’s refusal to issue a construction licence to the respondent for his land, adjacent to the appellant’s land. The Deputy Director of Panchayats allowed the respondent’s appeal (under Section 66(2) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994) on 29.01.2013, directing the grant of the licence. The appellant, claiming adverse effect on a pathway, successfully appealed to the Director of Panchayats (under Section 66(7) of the Act), whose order dated 03.07.2015 allowed her appeal.
The respondent challenged this order via a revision application (under Section 201-B of the Act) before the District Judge-IV, South Goa, with a delay condonation application. The District Judge, by order dated 08.01.2019, condoned the delay by applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
The appellant challenged the condonation of delay in Writ Petition No. 157 of 2019 before the High Court. During the pendency, a settlement was reached: the respondent agreed to provide 3 meters of pathway access (as per the Director of Panchayats’ order) and withdraw his revision application. The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition on 02.03.2022 based on this settlement, noting the revision application stood withdrawn.
Subsequently, the respondent filed an “Application for Speaking to the Minutes” (Misc. Civil Application No. 176/2022) in the same writ petition, seeking clarification that the access path was to be maintained all along the western boundary as shown on a plan marked ‘X’. The High Court, by order dated 28.02.2023, allowed this application and modified its earlier order to specify the location of the access path as per the plan. The appellant’s Review Application (Civil) No. 10 of 2023 against this order was dismissed by the High Court on 18.01.2024. These two orders (28.02.2023 and 18.01.2024) were challenged in the present appeals.

5. Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

6. Type: Judgment

7. SCR Citation: not mentioned

8. Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 595

9. Judgment Authored by: Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha*

10. Date of Judgment: April 29, 2025

11. Case Start Date: 2024 (Year of filing of Diary No. 10634 of 2024. Leave was granted on April 29, 2025, as mentioned in Para 1 of the judgment).

12. Case Arising From:
The appeals were directed against:

1. Order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in an Application for Speaking to Minutes in Misc. Civil Application No. 176/2022 in Writ Petition No. 157 of 2019. This order allowed the respondent’s application and clarified/modified the High Court’s earlier order of 02.03.2022 regarding the location of an access path.
2. Order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in Review Application (Civil) No. 10/2023, which dismissed the appellant’s review petition against the order of 28.02.2023.
   The relief sought in the High Court by the appellant in the original Writ Petition No. 157 of 2019 was the setting-aside of the District Judge’s order dated 08.01.2019 which had condoned the delay in the respondent’s revision application.

13. Parties Involved:

• Appellant(s): FILOMENA SALDANHA THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY MR. FRAZIER SALDANHA
• Respondent(s): SUNIL KOHLI REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, MR. NAVAL BOWRY, & ORS.

14. Disposal Nature: Appeals allowed. Impugned orders set aside. Application for Speaking to Minutes restored for fresh decision by High Court.

15. Case Type: CIVIL APPEAL (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) DIARY NO.)

16. Law Type: Civil Procedure (Application for Speaking to Minutes, Review), Panchayat Law (Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994), Limitation Law.

17. Judges (Assent/Dissent):

• Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha (Authored the judgment, Assented)
• Hon’ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi (Assented)
  No dissenting opinions were recorded.

18. Procedural History:

• Lower Court Decisions:
  • Deputy Director of Panchayats (29.01.2013): Allowed respondent’s appeal against Village Panchayat’s refusal of construction licence.
  • Director of Panchayats (03.07.2015): Allowed appellant’s appeal, setting aside Deputy Director’s order (regarding pathway).
  • District Judge-IV, South Goa (08.01.2019): Condoned delay in respondent’s revision application against Director’s order.
  • High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa (02.03.2022): Disposed of appellant’s Writ Petition No. 157 of 2019 (challenging delay condonation) as infructuous based on a settlement where respondent agreed to provide access and withdraw his revision application.
  • High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa (28.02.2023): Allowed respondent’s “Application for Speaking to Minutes” (Misc. Civil Application No. 176/2022) and modified the order of 02.03.2022 to specify the location of the access path. (Impugned Order 1)
  • High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa (18.01.2024): Dismissed appellant’s Review Application (Civil) No. 10 of 2023. (Impugned Order 2)
• Appeals:
  • Appeals before the Supreme Court against the High Court orders dated 28.02.2023 and 18.01.2024.

19. Issues Framed:
While not explicitly framed, the key issues considered by the Supreme Court were:

• Whether the High Court erred in allowing the “Application for Speaking to Minutes” and thereby modifying a consent order without giving the appellant an adequate opportunity to contest the specifics of the modification, particularly concerning the location of the access path based on a plan allegedly not accepted by the appellant.
• Whether the High Court exceeded the scope of an “Application for Speaking to Minutes” by effectively reviewing or substantially modifying its earlier order.
• Whether the dismissal of the review application by the High Court was justified.
• Whether the interests of justice required remanding the “Application for Speaking to Minutes” for a fresh hearing.

20. Cases Cited:

• Cited by Court:
  • Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh & Ors v. Brijlal Tibrewal & Ors., 2018 INSC 1215 (Para 11, Page 8)
    • Relevance: Cited for guidance on the scope of applications for “Speaking to Minutes”.
    • Judicial Consideration: The Supreme Court directed the High Court to consider and dispose of the application on its own merits keeping in mind the scope of such applications as pronounced in this case.
    • Exact Quote: Not quoted, but reference made to its pronouncement on the scope.

21. Acts/Rules/Orders Referred:

• Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Panchayat Act):
  • Section 66(2): Mentioned as the provision under which the respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Panchayats. (Para 3, Page 2)
  • Section 66(7): Mentioned as the provision under which the appellant challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Panchayats before the Director of Panchayats. (Para 3, Page 2)
  • Section 201-B: Mentioned as the provision under which the respondent filed a revision application before the District Judge. (Para 3, Page 2)
    • Context: These sections define the appellate and revisional hierarchy and powers under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, forming the basis of the initial dispute resolution.
• Limitation Act:
  • Section 14: Mentioned as applied by the District Judge to condone delay. (Para 4, Page 2)
    • Context: This section allows for exclusion of time spent in prosecuting proceedings bona fide in a court without jurisdiction.

22. Acts/Rules/Orders Governing the Case:

• Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994
• Limitation Act
• Civil Procedure Code (principles governing applications for speaking to minutes, review applications)

23. Literature Citation:

• Cited by Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff: []
• Cited by Respondent/Defendant: []

24. Appearances:

• Advocates: Not specified in the provided OCR text (“ld. counsels appearing for the parties” mentioned in Para 9).
• Witnesses: NA
• Other Persons: NA

25. Legal Jargons and Maxims:

• Speaking to Minutes: An application made to a court to correct accidental slips or omissions, or to clarify ambiguities in an order already pronounced, without altering the substance of the decision.
• Infructuous: No longer capable of having any effect; pointless. (Used in High Court’s order dated 02.03.2022, Para 5, 10, Page 3, 4)

26. Exhibits:

• “Exhibit Number”: Plan marked as ‘X’
  “Description”: Plan showing the access path, referred to in the ‘Application for Speaking to Minutes’ and the High Court’s order dated 28.02.2023.
  “Page Number”: Referenced in Para 6 (page 4) and Para 7 (page 5).

27. Prayer:

• Prayer in Respondent’s “Application for Speaking to Minutes” before High Court (Misc. Civil Application No. 176/2022):
  “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.” (Para 6, Page 5)
• Appellant’s Prayer before Supreme Court: To set aside the High Court orders dated 28.02.2023 and 18.01.2024. (Implied from Para 2, Page 1 and the final decision in Para 11, Page 7)

28. Evidence & Findings:

• Finding by Supreme Court: The interests of justice would be subserved if the appellant is given an opportunity to contest the Application for Speaking to Minutes. The respondent should also have the opportunity to seek the modification and rectification sought in his application. (Para 10, Page 7)
• Finding by Supreme Court: The High Court should dispose of the “Application for Speaking to Minutes” on its own merits after giving an opportunity to both parties, keeping in mind the scope of such applications as pronounced in Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh & Ors v. Brijlal Tibrewal & Ors. (Para 11, Page 8)

29. Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff/Accused Arguments:
(Summarized from Para 9, Page 6-7)

• The Application for Speaking to the Minutes (dated 14.04.2022) was filed almost a month after the High Court’s order (02.03.2022) and was disposed of a year later.
• The plan tendered by the respondent to the High Court showing the access path was never accepted by the appellant.
• The true depiction of the site is the plan on record before the Director of Panchayat.
• The High Court treated the application for modifying an order as if it were exercising review jurisdiction, which is impermissible for such applications that should only correct clerical or typographical errors.
• Regarding the dismissal of the review application, the High Court did not address the appellant’s grievances on merits but took exception to the appellant moving the review application before another bench.

30. Respondent/Defendant/Opponent/State Arguments:
(Inferred from their actions and the nature of the “Application for Speaking to Minutes”)

• The High Court’s order dated 02.03.2022, while recording the settlement for a 3-meter access path, did not clarify the exact location of this path.
• The non-mention of the specific location (all along the western boundary as shown on plan ‘X’) could lead to confusion.
• The “Application for Speaking to Minutes” was filed to seek clarification and record that the access to be maintained is as depicted on the plan marked ‘X’. (Para 6, Page 4)

31. Ratio Decidendi:
The primary reason for the Supreme Court’s decision was rooted in procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice:

• The appellant must be given an opportunity to contest the “Application for Speaking to Minutes,” especially when it seeks to clarify or modify the terms of a consent order by introducing specifics (like a particular plan for an access path) that were allegedly not agreed upon by the appellant. (Para 10, Page 7)
• Similarly, the respondent is entitled to seek modification or rectification through appropriate procedures. (Para 10, Page 7)
• An “Application for Speaking to Minutes” has a defined scope, primarily for correcting clerical/typographical errors or clarifying ambiguities, and should not be used as a guise for review or substantive modification of an order without affording a proper hearing to all affected parties on the proposed changes. The High Court needs to re-examine the application within this limited scope. (Para 11, Page 8, referencing Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh)

32. Final Decision:
The appeals are allowed. 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 are set aside. The application Misc. Civil Application No. 176/2022 is restored 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. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the matter. (Para 11, Page 7-8)

33. Timeline:

• 29.01.2013: Deputy Director of Panchayats allowed respondent’s appeal for construction licence.
• 03.07.2015: Director of Panchayats allowed appellant’s appeal (regarding pathway).
• 08.01.2019: District Judge condoned delay in respondent’s revision application.
• 2019: Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 157 of 2019 in High Court.
• 27.01.2022: Date mentioned in respondent’s prayer in Application for Speaking to Minutes regarding Plan ‘X’. (Para 6, Page 5)
• 02.03.2022: High Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 157 of 2019 based on settlement.
• 14.04.2022: Respondent filed “Application for Speaking to the Minutes” (Misc. Civil Application No. 176/2022). (Mentioned by appellant in Para 9, Page 6)
• 28.02.2023: High Court allowed the “Application for Speaking to Minutes”. (Impugned Order 1)
• 2023: Appellant filed Review Application (Civil) No. 10 of 2023.
• 18.01.2024: High Court dismissed the Review Application. (Impugned Order 2)
• 2024: Diary No. 10634 of 2024 filed in Supreme Court.
• April 29, 2025: Supreme Court delivered this judgment.