A modification application cannot be used to reopen substantive judicial determinations.

The petitioner sought modification of the judgment dated 31 July 2026, requesting corrections to several case details and factual descriptions, as well as changes to the Court’s direction on compensation and to its reference to a statutory provision.

The Court considered the requests against the pleadings and supporting documents in W.P.(C) Nos. 22751 of 2021 and 2903 of 2022.

Opposite Party No. 1 opposed the proposed alteration of the compensation direction as an impermissible substantive review.

Whether requested changes to case numbers, dates, and the description of a relationship could be allowed as corrections of inadvertent errors.

Whether the Court could, by way of modification, alter its compensation direction or change the statutory provision applied in the judgment.

Whether requested insertions of additional text into the judgment were necessary or warranted.

The Court distinguished between correcting inadvertent typographical errors and revisiting substantive judicial determinations.

Clerical or typographical mistakes may be corrected where the record establishes the intended text; a modification application cannot be used to re-examine or alter a conscious judicial decision.

The order cites no specific statute or precedent for this principle.

The pleadings and annexures established that the judgment had misstated the impugned orders in both writ petitions and the RoR publication date; the counter-affidavit and rejoinder likewise confirmed that Opposite Party No. 1 was the son, not the grandson, of the original purchaser. The Court therefore treated those errors as typographical and allowed their correction.

By contrast, the proposed change to the compensation direction and the substitution of Section 4 for Section 3 concerned express judicial determinations, not accidental errors, and could not be made through modification. The proposed additions to paragraphs 3 and 15 were unnecessary because the existing text remained sufficiently clear.

The Court corrected the impugned-order details in paragraph 2, the RoR publication date in paragraph 4, and “grandfather” to “father” in paragraphs 5 and 7.

It rejected the requests to alter the compensation direction, change the statutory provision, and insert additional text in paragraphs 3 and 15.

The application was disposed of accordingly, with the Office directed to carry out the permitted corrections.