LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/ajay-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-20241209/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Ajay Kumar Jain vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
9 December 2024
Case No.
Miscellaneous Application No. 2565 of 2024
Bench
J.B. Pardiwala, R Mahadevan
Citation
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 478 : 2024 INSC 958
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 12 S.C.R. 478 : 2024 INSC 958
Issue for consideration
Whether miscellaneous application is maintainable in a writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events.
Headnote

Miscellaneous Application – Whether miscellaneous application is maintainable in a writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events:

Held: The miscellaneous applications filed with fresh cause of action that might have arisen with a very remote connection with the main proceedings – 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 – It is settled that a miscellaneous application filed in a disposed of proceedings would be maintainable only for the purpose of correcting any clerical or arithmetical error – A post disposal application for modification or clarification of the order would lie only in rare cases where the order passed by this Court is executory in nature and the directions of the Court may have become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments. [Paras 13, 14, 15, 17]

Directions by the Supreme Court – Miscellaneous Applications – Regarding:

Held: The Registry directed not to 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 to 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. [Paras 18, 19]

Keywords: Miscellaneous Application · Revival of proceedings · Subsequent events · Proceedings terminated by final disposal · Modification of the order · Clarification of the order · Clerical or arithmetical error

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Order 1. Delay condoned. 2. Application seeking permission to appear and argue-in-person is allowed. 3. This miscellaneous application is at the instance of the original petitioner of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 429 of 2020. 4. In this miscellaneous application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:“A. To Direct the Hon'ble Distt. Judge, Agra; The S.S.P., Agra to grant protection to the applicant during the pendency of Civil appeal number 126/2021 pending before the Hon'ble Distt. Judge, Agra on 29th March, 2022 and subsequent dates; and B. pass such a order and directions as
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →