Clarification petitions cannot be used to bypass review procedure when the real relief sought is rehearing and alteration of judgment.

An application styled as one for clarification cannot be entertained when its substance is a review seeking rehearing and alteration of an earlier judgment. Review lies under Article 137 read with Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, and the form of the pleading cannot override its real object. A party may not bypass the prescribed review procedure by renaming the request as clarification or modification. In the absence of any apparent error on the record, the application was treated as an impermissible device and rejected as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application styled as one for clarification was in substance a review petition and therefore not maintainable.

Analysis: A review lies under Article 137 of the Constitution read with Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, and such applications are ordinarily disposed of by circulation under Rule 3. An application cannot be entertained as a clarification or modification petition when its real object is to secure rehearing and alteration of the earlier judgment. The form of the application does not control its substance, and a party cannot be permitted to circumvent the prescribed review procedure by changing nomenclature. In the absence of any apparent error on the record, the attempt was treated as an impermissible and abusive device.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A petition styled as clarification or modification, but in substance seeking review, cannot be entertained to bypass the prescribed review procedure, and it is liable to rejection if no apparent error on the record is shown.

---