Application for Speaking to Minutes Cannot Alter Substantive Findings: Supreme Court Restores Pathway Dispute Case for Fresh Consideration

“High Court Treated Correction Plea as Review Without Jurisdiction”, - In a significant ruling Supreme Court held that an application for ‘Speaking to the Minutes’ cannot be used as a substitute for substantive modification or review of an order, especially where core factual or legal issues are involved.

“Such applications may only enable courts to correct clerical or typographical errors,” the Court clarified, rebuking the High Court’s use of the mechanism to incorporate a substantial modification regarding the location of a disputed access pathway.

Dispute Over Access Path to Property Ended in Compromise — Later Modified Through Clarification Application

The case stemmed from a land dispute in Goa, where the respondent had secured a construction licence adjacent to the appellant’s land. The appellant challenged this licence, claiming that the construction obstructed a public access pathway. The dispute went through multiple appellate and revisional stages under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

Eventually, the parties arrived at a settlement during proceedings in Writ Petition No. 157 of 2019. On March 2, 2022, the High Court disposed of the case after recording that the respondent had agreed to withdraw his revision application and leave a 3-metre-wide access path, as earlier directed by the Director of Panchayats.

The High Court concluded:

“Once the aforesaid statement is made... nothing remains in the present Writ Petition... this Court is no longer called upon to decide as to whether the delay was properly condoned by the District Court or not.”

“Access Path Not Clearly Marked”: Respondent Sought Post-Facto Modification Through ‘Speaking to Minutes’ Plea

Almost a month after the compromise order, the respondent moved an Application for Speaking to the Minutes, arguing that the March 2 order had failed to specify that the 3-metre pathway was to run along the western boundary of the property, as shown in a plan marked “X”.

The High Court, without hearing the appellant, allowed the application on February 28, 2023, and modified Paragraph 9 of its earlier order to include this specific alignment based on the plan “X”. It reasoned that such clarification was needed to remove ambiguity.

When the appellant filed a review application, the High Court dismissed it, criticizing the appellant for approaching a different bench and declining to address the merits.

“Clarification Became Modification – That Is Not Permitted”: Supreme Court Reverses the High Court

Disapproving of the procedure adopted, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had overstepped the permissible scope of a ‘Speaking to the Minutes’ application.

“The High Court has treated the application for modifying an order as if it were exercising review jurisdiction, which is impermissible,” observed the Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi.

The Court further noted: “It is the contention of the appellant that the plan tendered by the respondent to the High Court showing the access path was never accepted... the application ought to have been heard on its merits.”

The Supreme Court set aside both impugned orders — the one modifying the original compromise order and the one rejecting the review petition — and restored the application for clarification to its original number, to be decided afresh after hearing both parties.

“Scope of Speaking to Minutes Is Limited”: Court Refers to Precedent

The Court emphasized the principles laid down in Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh v. Brijlal Tibrewal (2018 INSC 1215), reiterating:

“‘Speaking to the Minutes’ applications are limited in scope and are not meant to alter the substantive directions or conclusions of a court order.”

The Bench concluded that justice would best be served by allowing both parties to present their case fully before the High Court, without the burden of prior procedural errors.

“It is for the High Court to consider and dispose of the application on its own merit after giving an opportunity to both the parties.”

Date of Decision: April 29, 2025