Disguised review applications cannot bypass the Supreme Court's review procedure or reopen final judgments through modification requests.

A miscellaneous application seeking substitution of a final demolition direction was treated as a disguised review because it asked for substantive alteration of concluded directions. The Supreme Court reiterated that applications labelled as clarification, modification, recall, or miscellaneous cannot be used to bypass the prescribed review procedure. Inherent powers under the Supreme Court Rules cannot be invoked to circumvent the specific review framework, and a party cannot do indirectly what the rules prohibit directly. The application was therefore not maintainable, as reopening a final judgment in this manner would undermine finality and amount to abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether a miscellaneous application seeking modification of a final judgment and substitution of the demolition direction was maintainable or was, in substance, a review application.

Analysis: The application sought substantive alteration of the final directions already issued and therefore amounted in substance to a review. The Court reiterated that applications styled as clarification, modification, recall, or miscellaneous applications cannot be used to bypass the prescribed review procedure. The inherent powers preserved under the Supreme Court Rules cannot be invoked to circumvent the specific review framework, and a party cannot achieve indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly. Reopening a concluded judgment through such an application would undermine the stability and finality of judicial decisions and amount to abuse of process.

Conclusion: The miscellaneous application was not maintainable and was rejected as an impermissible disguised review.

---