PERRY KANSAGRA v. SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA

2.5 In terms of Sub Rule (viii) of Rule 8, the Counsellor is obliged to give report, inter alia, relating to home environment of the parties concerned, their personalities and their relationship with the child and/or children in order to assist the Judge in deciding the question of guardianship of any child or children. The intention is clear that the normal principle of confidentiality will not apply in matters concerning custody or guardianship issues and the Court, in the best interest of the child, must be equipped with all the material touching upon relevant issues in order to render complete justice. This departure from confidentially is consistent with the underlined theme of the Act in general and Section 12 in particular. Once there is a clear exception in favour of categories stated therein, principles in any other forms of mediation/conciliation or other modes of Alternative Dispute Resolution regarding confidentiality cannot be imported. The effect of such exception cannot be diluted or nullified. [Para 28][1021-C-F]

2.6 Under Section 6 the Counsellors are appointed by the State Government in consultation with the High Court. The Counsellor in the instant case was not the one who was appointed in terms of Section 6 but was appointed by a committee of the High Court and her assistance had been requested for in connection with many matters. The order passed on 06.05.2016 had indicated that the Mediator could join “any other person” as may be deemed necessary for a holistic and effective mediation. The next order dated 11.05.2016 did mention the name of the Counsellor and the fact that the Counsellor had a fruitful meeting with ‘A’-son of the parties. The Counsellor, thereafter, interacted with him on 08.07.2016 and 11.07.2016, based on which interaction, a report was submitted on 21.07.2016. The engagement of the Counsellor was thus, in complete knowledge of the parties as well as with express acceptance of the High Court. The Counsellor was not appointed under Section 6 of the Act but if the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child, PERRY KANSAGRA v. SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA 995 there cannot be undue reliance on a technicality. As a matter of fact, the width of Section 12 would admit no such restriction. The report given by the Counsellor in the instant case cannot, therefore, be eschewed from consideration. There was absolutely nothing against the Counsellor and in the judgment under appeal, the High Court went on to observe that the Counsellor was well experienced and known for her commitment and sincerity to secure a settlement which would be satisfactory to all. There is no reason why reports in the instant case be kept out of consideration. The subsequent judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and the earlier judgment passed by the High Court is restored. [Paras 29-31][1021-G, H; 1022-A-E] Afcons Infrastructure Limited and another v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited and others (2010) 8 SCC 24 : [2010] 8 SCR 1053 ; Moti Ram (dead) through Lrs. and another v. Ashok Kumar and another (2011) 1 SCC 466 : [2010] 14 SCR 809 ; Govind Prasad Sharma and others v. Doon Valley Officers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (2017) 11 SCALE 231 ; Ashish Ranjan v. Anupma Tandon and another (2010) 14 SCC 274 : [2010] 14 SCR 961 ; Inderchand Jain (dead) through Lrs. v. Motilal (dead) through Lrs. (2009) 14 SCC 663 : [2009] 11 SCR 252 ; Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others (1999) 9 SCC 596 : [1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 302 ; Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others (1997) 8 SCC 715 : [1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 470 ; Board of Control for Cricket in India and another v. Netaji Cricket Club and others (2005) 4 SCC 741: [2005] 1 SCR 173 - referred to. Case Law Reference [2009] 11 SCR 252 [1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 302 [1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 470 [2005] 1 SCR 173 [2010] 8 SCR 1053 [2010] 14 SCR 809 2017 (11) SCALE 231 [2010] 14 SCR 961 referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to Para 14 Para 14 Para 14 Para 15 Para 21 Para 22 Para 22 Para 26 A B C D E F G H 996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 3 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1694 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2017 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Rev. Pet. No. 221 of 2017 in MAT APP (F.C.) No. 67 of 2016. Inderjeet Saroop, Ms. Anunya Mehta, Raghav Saroop, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Advs. for the Appellant. Saurabh Kirpal, Prosenjeet Banerjee, Ms. Mansi Sharma, Ms. Shreya Singhal, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted.

#2. This appeal challenges the final Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi allowing Review Petition No.221 of 2017 preferred by the respondent against the judgment and order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi in MAT App. (F.C.) No.67 of 2016.

#3. The appellant (Kenyan and British Citizen) and Respondent (Indian Citizen) got married on 29.07.2007 at New Delhi. After marriage, the Respondent shifted to Nairobi, Kenya and settled into her matrimonial home with the appellant. A son, named Aditya Vikram Kansagra was born to the couple on 02.12.2019 at New Delhi. After delivery, the respondent returned back to Nairobi along with Aditya. Thereafter, the Respondent and Aditya travelled from Kenya to India on few occasions. Aditya holds Kenyan as well as British passport.

#4. The appellant, Respondent and Aditya came from Nairobi to New Delhi on 10.03.2012. According to the appellant, the return tickets for travel back to Nairobi were booked for 06.06.2012. While in India, in May 2012, the Respondent filed a civil suit registered as CS (OS) No.1604 of 2012 before the High Court of Delhi praying inter alia for an injunction to restrain the appellant from removing Aditya from the custody of the Respondent. Upon notice being issued, the appellant contested the suit in which visitation orders were passed by the High Court from time to time. The appellant thereafter filed Guardianship Petition praying inter alia that he be declared the legal Guardian of Aditya and be given his permanent custody. The Guardianship Petition dated 06.11.2012 was registered as No.G-53 of 2012 before the Family Court, Saket, New Delhi. B C D E F G H PERRY KANSAGRA v. SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 997

#5. In terms of visitation orders passed by the High Court, the appellant along with paternal grandparents were permitted to meet Aditya for 2 hours on Friday, Saturday and Sunday in the 2nd week of every month. According to the appellant he flew from Nairobi to New Delhi every month to meet Aditya along with the paternal grandparents. In view of the pendency of the guardianship petition, CS (OS) No.1604 of 2012 was disposed of by the High Court on 31.08.2015, leaving the parties to place their grievances before the Family Court. The arrangement of visitation was thereafter modified by the Family Court by its orders dated 09.02.2016 and 09.03.2016.

#6. On 18.04.2016, an application was filed by the appellant praying that the Family Court may direct the Court Counsellor to bring Aditya to the Court for an in-chamber meeting, which prayer was objected to by the Respondent. After hearing both sides, the Family Court allowed said application vide Order dated 04.05.2016, and directed that Aditya be produced before the Court 07.05.2016. The relevant part of the Order was as under:- “…..The court is parens patriae in such proceedings. Petitioner’s visitation with the child is anyway scheduled for 07.05.2016. Let the child be produced before the court at 10 am on 07.05.2016 before he goes for meeting with his father and grand parents.”

#7. The Respondent being aggrieved, filed MAT App. (FC) No.67 of 2016 before the High Court. On 06.05.2016, after hearing both sides, Division Bench of the High Court referred the parties to mediation and also directed that Aditya be produced before the Court on 11.05.2016. Paragraphs 7 and 9 of said Order were :- “7. During our interaction with the parties, a desire is expressed by the parties to make one more attempt for a negotiated settlement of all disputes between the parties by recourse to mediation. The parents of the respondent are also present and have joined the proceedings before us. They have also submitted that they would like to make an attempt for a negotiated settlement for all disputes between the parties. … … … … …

#9. With the consent of parties, it is directed as follows: (i) The parties shall appear before Ms. Sadhana Ramchandran, learned Mediator in SAMADHAN-Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 9th May, 2016 at 2:30 pm. A B C D E F G H 998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 3 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H (ii) It shall be open for the learned Mediator to join any other person or relative of the parties, as may be deemed necessary, for a holistic and effective mediation. (iii) In case, the respondent or any of his relative are not available in India, it shall be open for the learned Mediator to join them by any electronic mode of communication including Skype, Video Conferencing, etc. at the cost of the respondent. (iv) It shall also be open for the learned Mediator to meet the child at any place, as may be deemed convenient to her, and to arrange any visitation or meetings with the respondent of the child with the consent of the parties.”

#8. Thereafter, the matter came up on 11.05.2016. The High Court interacted with Aditya and following observations were made in paras 2 to 6 of its Order :- “2. We are also informed that the child has today met with Ms. Sadhana Ramachandran, learned Mediator as well as Ms. Swati Shah, Counsellor in SAMADHAN – Delhi High court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and that the mediation efforts are still underway.

#3. The son of the parties – Master Aditya Vikram Kansagra has been produced before us today. We have also had a long conversation with him and are deeply impressed with the maturity of this intelligent 6½ year old child who displays self confidence and a remarkable capacity of expressing himself with clarity. He exhibits no sign of confusion or nervousness at all.

#4. We also note that the child was comfortable in his interaction with his father and grandparents in court. The child has expressed happiness at his visitations with his father and grandparents. He unreservedly stated that he looks forward to the same. Master Aditya Vikram Kansagra is also able to identify other relatives in Kenya and enthusiastically refers to his experiences in that country. It is apparent that the child has bonded well with them.

#5. We must note that the child is at the same time deeply attached to his mother and Nani. His bearing and personality clearly bear the stamp of the fine upbringing being given to him by the appellant and her mother. PERRY KANSAGRA v. SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 999

#6. As of now, since 9th February, 2016, the child is meeting his father and grandparents between 10:30 am and 05:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday in the second week of every month and for two hours on Friday in the second week of every month. The visitation is supervised as the court has appointed a Counsellor who has been directed to remain present throughout the visitation.”

#9. During the ensuing mediation sessions, the Mediator and the Counsellor interacted with Aditya. The Counsellor interacted with Aditya on 08.07.2016 and 11.07.2016. Based upon her interactions with him, the Counsellor submitted a report dated 21.07.2016 in a sealed cover. Though, mediation was attempted on many occasions, the parties were unable to resolve their disputes and differences and an interim report was submitted by the Mediator on 22.07.2016. On 11.08.2016, the sealed cover containing the report of the Counsellor was opened and the report was taken on record. Copies of the report of the Counsellor were given to the parties. In an application moved the next day, i.e. on 12.08.2016, the appellant relied upon the report of the Counsellor dated 21.07.2016 and prayed for permission to speak to Aditya on telephone. While opposing the prayer, the respondent objected to such reliance on the ground of confidentiality. The Mediator thereafter filed final report in November, 2016 reporting failure.

#10. Thereafter the matter came up for final arguments before another Division Bench of the High Court. The Respondent raised the issue of admissibility of the reports submitted by the Mediator and Counsellor contending that the reports could not be relied upon in view of principle of confidentiality. The High Court dealt with said submissions and while disposing of the appeal, by its judgment dated 17.02.2017 observed as under:- “10. The mediation has failed.

#11. But we are called upon to decide an important question concerning confidentiality of the mediation process for the reason on October 11, 2016 a report was received from the Mediator which was taken on record and copy given to both parties. The report of the Mediator refers to a child counsellor being involved who had also given an independent report which was also taken on record. … … … … … … … A B C D E F G H 1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 3 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H “13. The report of the child counsellor is to the effect that the child was normal and in spite of being happy with his mother he seems to idolize his father and affectionately remembers his house in Kenya; about which house he loved talking with the counsellor. The affection and the bond of the child with the father was commended as the positive attitude of the appellant who, obviously was not torturing the child. The child showed his love, affection and comfort for the appellant, evidenced by he fondly and happily talking about a recent vacation in Kashmir with his mother. The child was not uncomfortable with the idea of making a trip to Kenya. … … … … … … …

#17. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that mediation proceedings are confidential proceedings and anything disclosed, discussed or proposed by the parties before the mediator cannot be recorded, much less divulged. The reason being that very often during mediations, offers, counter offers and proposals are made. The ethos of mediation would bar disclosure of specified communications and writings associated with mediation. Parties are encouraged during mediation to engage in honest discussions as regards their problems and in matrimonial disputes these honest discussions many a time give rise to a better understanding between the couple. Such an approach encourages a forget and forgive attitude to be formed by the parties. If either spouse is under an apprehension that the well-meant deliberations might subsequently be used against them it would hamper an unreserved consideration of their problems. The atmosphere of mutual trust during mediation warrants complete confidentiality.

#18. But where the scope of mediation is the solution of a child parenting issue, report by a mediator or a child counsellor concerning the behavior and attitude of the child would not fall within the bar of confidentiality for the reason no information shared by the couple is being brought on record. The mandate of Section 12 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 cannot be lost sight of.

#19. In the instant case, what has been taken on record during mediation proceedings is the report of the Child Counsellor and the mediator, which we find are reports commending the good PERRY KANSAGRA v. SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 1001 attitude of both parents who, unlike many other couples, are not using the child as a tool to take revenge against the other. As noted above, the interaction by the previous Division Bench with the child has been recorded in the order dated May 11, 2016 i.e. the child being equally comfortable with both parents and having a desire to spend quality time with not only his mother and relatives from the maternal side but even with the father and relatives from the paternal side. Such reports are a neutral evaluation of expert opinion to a Court to guide the Court as to what orders need to be passed in the best interest of the child. These reports are not confidential communications of the parties.

#20. Having answered the issue which incidentally arose, and noting that otherwise the appeal has been rendered infructuous, we terminate further proceedings in the appeal inasmuch as no orders are now warranted to be passed in the appeal.

#21. The learned Judge Family Court would consider granting over night interim custody to the respondent when he is in India by imposing such terms and conditions which would ensure that the child is not removed from the territory of India. The issue concerning the appellant claiming that she has lost the Kenyan passport of the child and a fresh passport being issued in the name of the child would also be looked into by the learned Judge, Family Court.”

#11. On 18.03.2017, the respondent filed Review Petition No.221 of 2017 questioning the judgment dated 17.02.2017. The Review Petition was allowed by yet another Division Bench of High Court by judgment and order dated 11.12.2017. After posing the question, “..whether the Counsellor’s report furnished in the course of mediation proceedings or the Mediator’s report in case of mediation, when the process fails, can be used by either of the parties during trial”, the High Court concluded that the reports of the Mediator and the Counsellor “..shall be disregarded by the family court, when it proceeds to decide the merits of the case”. During the course of its discussion, the High Court noted Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2004; Format of application of SAMADHAN (the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre); Conciliation rules of UNCITRAL; Sections 75 and 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Mediation Training Manual issued by the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee, Supreme Court of India A B C D E F G H 1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 3 S.C.R. and Chartered Institute of Arbitrator’s Rules mandating confidentiality in matters pertaining to mediation and observed as under:- “21. There can, be no quarrel with the proposition that the mediation proceedings are confidential and anything disclosed, discussed or proposed before the mediator need not be recorded, much less divulged and that if it is done there would always be an apprehension that the discussion may be used against the parties and it would hamper the entire process. The atmosphere of mutual trust warrants complete confidentiality and the same is in fact noted in the main judgment. The petitioner is aggrieved by its later part which notes “but where the scope of the mediation is resolution of child parenting issue, the report concerning the behavior and attitude of the child would not fall within the bar of confidentiality”. To our mind, this is against the principle of mediation and charts the course of a slippery slope, as this judgment would hereafter discuss.

#22. No exceptions are made in the mediation rules either in our laws or in various jurisdictions mentioned above to the absolute rule of confidentiality. This Court held the mandate of Section 12 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 cannot be lost sight of; yet the issue is whether the order dated May 6, 2016 was passed purely under Section 12 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 or it was simply to facilitate mediation of disputes between the parents of the child. … … … … … … … …

#25. Section 12 of the 1984 Act, empowers the Family Court with the discretion to refer the parties to a counsellor, Undoubtedly, that power also extends to the appellate court. However, this case has three rather unusual features: one that the Court never authorized the mediator to exercise power that is vested statutorily with it. The discretion to involve or not to involve a counsellor is the Court’s and is non delegable. The respondent husband’s argument that the referral order permitted the mediator to involve “others” cannot be meant to authorize the exercise of discretion that is solely vested with the Court. Second, the issue of confidentiality is to be examined because the mediator furnished two reports-to the Court, in this case. A mediator’s position is A B C D E F G H PERRY KANSAGRA v. SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 1003 unique; undoubtedly she (or he) has professional training and competence to handle issues that involve intense and bitter struggle over matrimonial issues, properties, shared household, custody, (temporary or permanent) and in commercial matters, issues that have monetary and financial impacts. In all cases, parties express their fears, their expectations and their dearly held positions on the strength of the confidence that they repose in the mediator and the mediation process- both of which are reinforced by the absolute cloak of confidentiality. Given these imperatives, mediator’s reports, where the process has led to failure, should not record anything at all. Having regard to this position the fact that a mediator in a given case, proposes-for all the best and bona fide reasons, the involvement of a counsellor, does not in any manner undermine or take away the Court’s sole power to exercise it. In the eventuality of the parties’ agreeing, to such a course, they have to be asked to approach the Court, for appropriate orders: the Court would then refer them to the counsellor. The question of the kind of report to be submitted to the Court and whether it would be a part of the record would be known during the course of the proceeding. In the present case, the parties merely consented. There is nothing to show that the parties were aware that the mediator’s report, with regard to not merely what transpired, but with respect to her reflections, would be given to the court; nor was there anything to show that they were aware - when they consented to the involvement of a counsellor that her report would be given to the court. The third unusual feature is that in at least two sittings with the counsellor, the mediator was present. This “joint” proceeding is, in the opinion of the Court, unacceptable. It can lead to undesirable consequences, especially if the mediator and counsellor proceed to furnish their reports (as they did in this case). A reading of both reports in the present case, paints a definite picture to the reader strongly suggestive of a plausible course of action or conclusion. It is this, the power of suggestion, which parties are guaranteed protection from, when they agree to mediation. Imagine if there were to be a possibility of divergence of opinion. Where would that lead? Aside from adding to contentiousness, the Court too would be left confounded. … … … … … … … … A B C D E F G H 1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 3 S.C.R. A B C D E F G

#29. The observations made in the main judgment dated February 17, 2017 in effect would permit the mediators to exercise de facto, or in default, the exclusive powers of the Court under Section 12 of the 1984 Act, which are non delegable. There is no question of validation of such action, by a later order of the Court. The danger of this would be that Courts can well draw upon such irregularly produced material, to arrive at conclusions. The requirement of Section 12 also has to be understood as the mandate of law that only the Court and no other body can refer the parties to counseling. The proposition that something which the law mandates to be performed in one manner and no other manner “where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all”1 applies with full force. The order dated May 06, 2016 in this case merely referred the parties to the mediator and carved out the course and ambit of mediation. The report of the counsellor was never sought by the Court, and yet was treated to be one under Section 12 of the Act of 1984. Had the Court invoked Section 12 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 it would have clearly spelt out and recorded that while doing so; and in that sense there ought to have been a clear invocation of Section 12. The absence of such reference necessarily meant that the reference to “others’ meant only those connected with the dispute, such as family members of either the husband or the wife, whose participation was to facilitate amicable dispute resolution, not independent evaluation by a counsellor in an unguided manner to be incorporated or annexed to a mediation report.

#30. If such a position is allowed as in this case, mediation may then well be used as a forum for gathering expert opinion which would then enter the main file of the case. The mandate of Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, read with Rule 20 and Rule 21 of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2004 provides for confidentiality and non-disclosure of information shared with the mediator and during the proceedings of mediation. In the present case, the help of the counsellor sought by the mediator to get holistic settlement between the parties was not ordered in the manner visualized by Section 12 of the Family Courts 1Nazir Ahmed v King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 243 followed by State of UP v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358 H PERRY KANSAGRA v. SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 1005 Act, 1984. Consequently, neither the report of the mediator nor of the counsellor could have been allowed to be exhibited. They are contrary to the mandate of principles governing the mediation – they undermine party autonomy and choice; besides, they clearly violate Section 75 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The observations in the judgment dated February 17, 2017 to the extent it notes that “the reports of the mediator as also of the counsellor concerning the behavior and attitude of the child, especially when the mediation process has failed would not fall within the bar of confidentiality and hence cannot be used in any proceeding…… Such reports are a neutral evaluation of expert opinion to a Court to guide the Court as to what orders need to be passed in the best interest of the child. These reports are not confidential communications of the parties” and carving a general exception to mediation confidentiality in child custody matters and disputes for which the Family Court can seek the assistance of the counsellor, under Section 12 of the 1984 Act, are hereby recalled. We hasten to add that this judgment is not a reflection on the mediator whose unstinted track record is known to all, or the endeavor of the counsellor, who too is very experienced in her field. Their commitment and sincerity to secure a settlement satisfactory to all, and the mediation process in general, is not doubted; this judgment should in no way dampen that zeal and determination that they have displayed.”

#12. The view taken by the High Court in allowing the review is presently under challenge. Mr. Anunya Mehta, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted - (a) the High Court exceeded the scope of review jurisdiction as if it was sitting in appeal over the earlier judgment; that in terms of law laid down by this court an error which is not self- evident and which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning cannot be termed as error apparent on the face of the record; b) the report of the Counsellor was not hit by confidentiality as it merely recorded the interaction of the Counsellor with the child and did not record any information or submission by parties to the lis; that there is a recognized exception to the rule of confidentiality in child custody matters as the court, in such matters exercises parens patriae jurisdiction. Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, learned Advocate for the respondent responded - (i) mediation reports are part of confidential proceedings and cannot be permitted to be used in court proceedings for which reliance A B C D E F G H 1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 3 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H was placed on various statutory provisions; (ii) the Counsellor was not appointed under Section 6 of the Family Courts Act; (iii) exception under Rule 8 (viii) to (xiv) of the Family Court Rules cannot be read as exception to Rules 20 and 23 of the Mediation Rules; (iv) the mediation reports given by the Counsellor-in-mediation did not fall within the exceptions provided in rule 8; (v) there was no waiver of confidentiality and the respondent had objected to the use of the reports at the first instance; (vi) the earlier order being based on a misconception of law, the High Court was right in exercising review jurisdiction.

#13. The issues that arise for our consideration can broadly be put under two heads: a) Whether the High Court was justified in exercising review jurisdiction and setting aside the earlier judgment and b) Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the reports of the Mediator and the Counsellor in this case were part of confidential proceedings and no party could be permitted to use the same in any court proceedings or could place any reliance on such reports.

#14. As regards the first issue, relying on the decisions of this Court in Inderchand Jain (dead) through Lrs. vs. Motilal (dead) through Lrs.2, Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and others3 and Parsion Devi and others vs. Sumitri Devi and others4, it was submitted by the appellant that the exercise of review jurisdiction was not warranted at all. In Inderchand Jain2 it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 are as under:- “10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.

#11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India5 this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56)