A repeat clarification plea seeking review of the same order is not maintainable.

The parties’ minor daughter had lived in Ranchi since birth.

The mother filed a guardianship proceeding in Chapra, which was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, and later instituted Guardianship Case No. 250 of 2025 before the Family Court, Ranchi.

The Family Court initially granted her limited visitation; on appeal, the High Court set that order aside and allowed her application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, directing that interim custody be handed over to her pending the guardianship suit and that the suit be decided expeditiously.

The husband’s special leave petition was disposed of with liberty to seek clarification.

He first filed C.M.P. No. 597 of 2026, then withdrew it with liberty to approach the competent forum.

He subsequently filed this petition under Section 151 CPC, seeking clarification or modification of the earlier order, relying principally on the mother’s alleged non-appearance in the guardianship case and raising a question about the Family Court’s jurisdiction.

Whether the husband’s renewed application seeking clarification or modification of the High Court’s earlier custody order was tenable after his earlier petition for the same relief had been withdrawn.

Whether the mother’s alleged non-appearance, the asserted jurisdictional concern, or the request for a fixed disposal timeline justified modifying the earlier order.

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, preserves the court’s inherent powers to make orders necessary for the ends of justice; the application invoked that provision for clarification or modification.

Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, was the basis of the mother’s application for interim relief, while Section 9 concerns jurisdiction in guardianship proceedings.

The Court also applied the principle stated in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2024) 6 SCC 267, that constitutional courts should ordinarily refrain from fixing time-bound schedules for cases pending before other courts, except in exceptional circumstances; it relied on Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 899, in support of that approach.

The Court considered the present petition to seek the same clarification or modification as the earlier C.M.P., which the husband had withdrawn after argument.

It treated the renewed request as an attempt to revisit the earlier appellate order, rather than a ground warranting relief under Section 151 CPC.

The mother’s alleged absence from the guardianship case was a matter for the Family Court to address under law, not a basis for modifying the High Court’s interim order.

The Court also declined to impose a further deadline, noting that the earlier order already directed expeditious disposal without unnecessary adjournments and that the Supreme Court had declined to interfere with it.

It considered the jurisdictional objection unworthy of consideration while the guardianship proceeding remained pending before the Family Court at Ranchi.

It made no further modification to the order dated 15 May 2026 and disposed of any pending interlocutory application.