Judgment – Modification of – Applicant sought modification of the judgment and order of the Supreme Court dated 31.08.2021 – Earlier, the Division Bench of the High Court had directed the demolition of Towers 16 and 17 by NOIDA constructed by the applicant – The Judgment of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court – Applicant submitted that since the minimum distance required under the relevant Building Regulations was not complied with and there was violation of the requirement of maintaining a green area under the relevant Building Regulations – The applicant would meet the above two findings by slicing a portion of Tower 17, while retaining Tower 16 so as to ensure compliance of the above two findings – Held: The attempt in the present miscellaneous application was to seek a substantive modification of the Judgment of the Supreme Court – Such an attempt is not permissible in a miscellaneous application – Application u/Or.LV, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 cannot be inverted to bypass the provisions of review in Or.XLVII in the Rules 2013 – The miscellaneous application is an abuse of the process – A judicial pronouncement cannot be subject to modification once the judgment has been pronounced, by filing miscellaneous application – Thus, the miscellaneous application is accordingly dismissed.