No Miscellaneous Application Maintainable In A Writ Petition to Revive Proceedings In Respect Of Subsequent Events: Supreme Court

The Apex Court also observed that 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

The Appellant approached the Apex Court for issuance of a direction to the Distt. Judge, Agra to grant protection to the applicant during the pendency of a Civil appeal.

The Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice R. Mahadevan asserted, “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. These miscellaneous applications which are being filed on a daily basis have something to do with fresh cause of action that might have arisen with a very remote connection with the main proceedings.”

The appellant had filed the Writ Petition seeking direction for devising a mechanism for enforcing court orders and a direction to the District Judge to dispose of the proceedings which were initiated by the petitioner for breach of the order which enured to his benefit.

Thus, while disposing of the main matter earlier, the Apex Court observed that in so far as the wider relief which was prayed for by the applicant – herein, could not have been granted in proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. However, the Court proceeded to issue directions to the District Judge to dispose of the contempt application filed by the applicant herein expeditiously.

The Appellant’s Counsel brought it 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. Despite all the aforestated developments, he had not been able to achieve any positive result in his litigation. He apprehended threat to himself and his family members at the end of the contemnor.

The Bench asserted, “No miscellaneous application is maintainable in a writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events.”

“In fact, 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 clarified.

Reference was also made to the judgment in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, and Others vs. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. and Another (2024) where the Court mentioned 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 Bench also passed the following directions:

• The Registry shall not circulate any miscellaneous application filed in a disposed of proceedings unless and until there is a specific averment on oath that the filing of the miscellaneous application has been necessitated as the order passed in the main proceedings being executory in nature and have become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments.
• The Registry shall insist from every applicant who intends to file any miscellaneous application in a disposed of proceedings for such a declaration as above on solemn affirmation.
• 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

Thus, rejecting the Miscellaneous Application and Application for appeal against Registrar’s order, the Bench also granted liberty to the applicant appearing in-person to avail appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum. “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 added.

Cause Title: Ajay Kumar Jain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 958]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Petitioner-in-person

Click here to read/download Order