Supreme Court Reasserts Limited Scope of “Speaking-to-the-Minutes” Applications: Commentary on Filomena Saldanha through POA v. Sunil Kohli through POA & Ors. (2025 INSC 595)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s decision dated 29 April 2025 in Filomena Saldanha v. Sunil Kohli revisits a frequently-misused procedural device— the “Speaking-to-the-Minutes” (STM) application. Although often treated as a benign mechanism to correct clerical slips, STM motions have gradually been employed to seek substantial alterations in judgments. In this appeal the Court was invited to decide whether the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) overstepped the permissible boundaries of STM jurisdiction when, post-disposal of a writ petition, it effectively modified the nature and location of an access pathway between neighbouring properties. The Court set aside two impugned High Court orders—one allowing the STM application (28.02.2023) and another rejecting the subsequent review (18.01.2024)—and remanded the STM motion for fresh consideration after hearing both parties, reiterating the limited scope of such applications.

Key Parties

• Appellant: Filomena Saldanha, represented through her Attorney, Mr. Frazier Saldanha.
• Respondent No. 1: Sunil Kohli, represented through his Attorney, Mr. Naval Bowry.
• Authorities involved: Village Panchayat, Deputy Director of Panchayats, Director of Panchayats, District Judge-IV (South Goa).

Core Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in an STM application, can go beyond clerical corrections and introduce substantive clarifications impacting property rights.
2. Whether failure to afford the opposite party an opportunity to contest such clarifications vitiates the STM order.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court (per Narasimha J., Bagchi J. concurring) allowed the appeals, holding that:

• The High Court exceeded the improper scope of STM applications by incorporating a new specification—the exact location of a 3-metre access path—thereby altering substantive rights.
• No adequate opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant before the High Court modified its original order.
• Both impugned High Court orders (28.02.2023 & 18.01.2024) are set aside; Misc. Civil Application No. 176/2022 (STM) is restored for fresh adjudication.
• The High Court must decide the STM application afresh, within the correct legal confines, after hearing both sides, bearing in mind the ratio in Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh v. Brijlal Tibrewal (2018 INSC 1215).

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh v. Brijlal Tibrewal & Ors. (2018 INSC 1215)
   Reaffirmed that an STM application is limited to correcting accidental, arithmetical or clerical errors. Substantive review requires using the court’s review jurisdiction under Order XLVII CPC.
   Influence: The Supreme Court treated Akhil Bhartvarshiya as the controlling precedent, directing the High Court to confine itself to that scope.
2. Section 14, Limitation Act 1963
   Initially invoked by the District Judge to exclude the time spent in High Court proceedings for calculating delay. Not directly in issue before the Supreme Court but provides context.
3. General jurisprudence on STM/“speaking to the minutes” in cases such as Mahadev Shankar Kamat v. State of Goa (Bombay HC, 2005) and ITO v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi (SC, 1968) (not expressly cited but conceptually relevant), where courts emphasised circumspection.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

• Nature of STM Applications. The Court started by identifying an STM motion as a narrow procedural tool, akin to Rule 89 of the Bombay High Court Rules or analogous to Section 152 CPC. It is not a surrogate for review (Order XLVII CPC) or appeal.
• Substantive Alteration vs. Clerical Rectification. Adding the “western boundary” description and annexing Plan ‘X’ materially changed the obligation undertaken by the respondent. That goes beyond a mere correction— it affects property rights and possibly future suits. Such an order cannot be passed ex parte or under STM powers.
• Natural Justice. Because the High Court accepted the respondent’s STM request without hearing the appellant, principles of audi alteram partem were violated.
• Remand Instead of Final Pronouncement. The Court avoided deciding the STM question itself—consistent with appellate restraint—by setting aside the impugned orders and directing the High Court to rehear the STM application proper.

3.3 Potential Impact on Future Litigation

This ruling is poised to act as a cautionary note for all High Courts and subordinate courts:

1. Procedural Discipline: Courts must strictly demarcate between STM corrections and review. Any application attempting to re-define parties’ substantive rights must trigger review jurisdiction with its attendant limitations (e.g., maintainability, time bar, error apparent on the face of record).
2. Expanded Audi Alteram Partem: Even ostensibly “minor” clarifications require notice to the opposite party when they carry potential civil consequences.
3. Predictability in Property Litigation: In states where property disputes often hinge on survey plans, locational clarifications cannot be smuggled in via STM; they require proper pleadings, evidence and opportunity to contest.
4. Administrative Efficiency: By dissuading misuse of STM, the ruling may reduce satellite litigation—review petitions, intra-court appeals—arising from allegedly “clarificatory” orders.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Speaking-to-the-Minutes (STM) Application: A post-judgment motion requesting the court to correct accidental or clerical mistakes, e.g., misspelled names, wrong dates, computational errors. It cannot be used to reopen merits or insert new substantive directions.
• Review Jurisdiction (Order XLVII CPC): A statutory power enabling the same court to revisit its judgment when there is an “error apparent on the face of the record,” discovery of new evidence, or “any other sufficient reason.” It is subject to strict timelines and conditions.
• Section 14, Limitation Act: Allows exclusion of time spent prosecuting a case in a wrong forum, provided the litigant acted in good faith and with due diligence.
• Panchayat Act Appeals (Goa): Section 66(2) permits an appeal against a Panchayat’s refusal to grant construction licence; Section 66(7) allows a second appeal to the Director; Section 201-B allows revisions to the District Judge.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Filomena Saldanha v. Sunil Kohli is a pivotal reminder that procedural shortcuts cannot be used to effectuate substantive changes in judgments. By remanding the STM application for a proper hearing, the Court:

1. Reaffirmed the narrow ambit of STM motions, confining them to clerical or typographical corrections.
2. Strengthened natural-justice requirements even in ostensibly minor post-judgment proceedings.
3. Provided clarity to litigants and courts on the demarcation between STM and review jurisdictions, following Akhil Bhartvarshiya.

Going forward, parties seeking to materially alter a concluded order must resort to the appropriate review or appellate mechanisms, thereby preserving judicial discipline and procedural integrity.