1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This is a miscellaneous application after the final disposal of the complaint vide order dated 18.10.2023. 3. Questioning the correctness of the said order the applicant, who is the opposite party in the complaint and the builder / developer, approached the Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 1557 of 2024. The appeal was dismissed by the following order: “1. Delay condoned. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant shall comply with the impugned order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. However, he seeks some more time to refund the amount to the complainants. 3. The appellant may make an application before the National Commission in that regard and it will be open for the said Commission to pass appropriate order thereon. 4. Having said so, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. 5. The appeal is dismissed.” 4. Learned counsel relying on paragraph 3 of the said order states that this liberty was given to the applicant seeking modification for further time to refund the amount. 5. This application which has been moved prays for two years’ time to refund the amount. 6. In my opinion such an application is not maintainable for modification keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Upadhyay & Co. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 81, Paragraphs 9 and 16. Admittedly, this is not an application for review and only seeks a modification. The Apex Court has already held that after final orders are passed, a modification of the order may not be permissible as held in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Ors., M.A. 1166 of 2021 in Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2019, dated 17.08.2022, where also a miscellaneous application had been filed and the Apex Court came down heavily clearly stating that there is a growing tendency of indirectly seeking review of the orders by filing applications either seeking modification or clarification. It was held that this is a clear abuse of process of court. The judgment is quoted herein under: “1. IA No. 76416/2021 (M.A. No.1166 of 2021) has been filed by respondent No.1 for clarification of the judgment and order dated 13th April 2021 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2019, praying therein to clarify that this Court, in the said judgment and order dated 13th April 2021, has not dealt with the aspect of security of pledge of shares with EARC having been arbitrarily and illegally wiped out in the Resolution Plan and invocation/non-invocation of pledge of shares by EARC. It is further prayed in the said application that this Court should not only expunge the observations made by the National Company Law Tribunal in common order dated 22nd June, 2018 as found in paragraphs 104 and 105 of the said judgment and order dated 13th April, 2021 of this Court in Civil Appeal No.8129 of 2019, but should also direct the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal to not be influenced by the said observations while deciding Review Application No.17 of 2019. 2. IA No.52435/2022 has been filed on behalf of Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Ltd., seeking intervention to support the application for clarification filed by respondent No.1. 3. We have heard Mr. C.S.Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/respondent No.1- Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company (EARC) in M.A. No. 1166 of 2021, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant in IA No. 52435/2022, and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the original appellant. 4. Having heard learned senior counsel for the parties and having perused the relevant materials placed on record, we are of the considered view that the present applications are nothing else but an attempt to seek review of the judgment and order passed by this Court on 13th April 2021 under the garb of miscellaneous application. 5. We find that there is a growing tendency of indirectly seeking review of the orders of this Court by filing applications either seeking modification or clarification of the orders passed by this Court. 6. In our view, such applications are a total abuse of process of law. The valuable time of Court is spent in deciding such applications which time would otherwise be utilized for attending litigations of the litigants who are waiting in the corridors of justice for decades together. 7. The applications are therefore dismissed with cost of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) each to be paid by the applicants within four weeks from the date of this order. The cost of Rs.10,00,000/- imposed on the applicant in M.A. No. 1166 of 2021 shall be deposited in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Welfare Fund (SCAORAWF) (Account No.02070110092378 and IFSC Code - UCBA0000207) and the cost of Rs.10,00,000/- imposed on the applicant in I.A. No.52435 of 2022 shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Bar Association Advocates Welfare Fund (Account No.02070110049617 and IFSC Code - UCBA0000207). 8. We, however, clarify that our observations are restricted to the present applications only and they would not affect the proceedings before appropriate forums, if the applicants are entitled to any remedy before any other forum(s) in accordance with law. 9. Miscellaneous Application as well as I.A. for intervention stand disposed of.” 7. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as quoted above and even otherwise in view of the inordinate and unreasonable time prayed for refund of two years, the present application is an attempt of an abuse of the process of court and to forestall the future process of execution. Accordingly, the application is rejected. | 
