# UNION OF INDIA AND ORS v. SMT. DARSHNA DEVI

- **Citation:** [1996] 1 S.C.R. 839
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1996-01-22
- **Case number:** I.A. Nos. in Civil Appeal Nos. 3450-3520 of 1995
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-and-ors-v-smt-darshna-devi-13750
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

B
Inherent power of Court :
Appeals disposed of-Review Petitions thereon dismissed-Application
filed for clarification and modification of the order-Since remedy by way of C
review under the Supreme Cowt Rules already availed inherent power cannot
be invoked again for fwther clarification or modification-Otherwise it will
be an abuse of the process of law without any responsibility.

## Text

)
\ \
)
I
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
v.
SMT. DARSHNA DEVI
JANUARY 22, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
B
Inherent power of Court :
Appeals disposed of-Review Petitions thereon dismissed-Application
filed for clarification and modification of the order-Since remedy by way of C
review under the Supreme Cowt Rules already availed inherent power cannot
be invoked again for fwther clarification or modification-Otherwise it will
be an abuse of the process of law without any responsibility.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. Nos. in Civil Appeal
Nos. 3450-3520 of 1995.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.91 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in L.P.A. Nos. 428,161-73, 362-65, 412-18, 429/85, 431,
434, 443-444/84, 445/85, 446/84, 16-23, 141/85, 143- 45/85, 147, 148-160/85,
116/84, 146/85, 174-80, 181/85, 141of1985.
N.N. Goswami, Ashok K. Srivastava, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Sushma
Suri, S.M. Sarin and P.N. Puri for the Appellants.
H.N. Salve, N.D. Garg, CJ. Jain, Anil Gupta, Rajiv K. Rarg and
A.D.N. Rao for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This Court by order dated March 2, 1995 disposed of the appeal in
E
F
the light of the earlier law laid down this Court. Review petitions in these
appeals were filed and the same came to be dismissed on May 10, 1995.
Now these applications have been filed after changing the counsel, for G
clarification and modification of the order.
IA. No. in CA No. 3450/95
When this Court asked the counsel as to under what provisions of
law these applications are maintainable, the counsel found himself unable H
839
840
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 1 S.C.R.
A
to bring to our notice any provision under which this application could be
entertained. The counsel state that the Court can do it under its inherent
power. Inherent power is meant only to correct orders when other remedy
is not available. Since the remedy by way of review under the rules of this
Court has been provided for and has been availed of, the inherent power
B cannot be invoked again for further clarification or modification. It would
be an obvious abuse of the process of law without any responsibility.
The I.A. is accordingly dismissed.
IA. Nos. in C4 Nos. 3451-3520/95
C
If the decree is not drawn in accordance with the directions of this
Court, then remedy would be open to the petitioners to have that decree
corrected according to law. l.A.S. are accordingly disposed of.
G.N.
I.AS. disposed of.
I (