Bombay High Court
SANJAY BAHGWAN CHAVAN AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the civil application is allowed to modify the earlier order by adding the omitted prayer clause D.
Summary
The petitioners, Sanjay Bahgwan Chavan and another, filed a civil application seeking to modify a court order dated 24 September 2025 in Writ Petition No. 288 of 2024. The original order had incorporated prayer clauses A and B but inadvertently omitted prayer clause D, which was intended to be part of the operative part. The State, represented by its Additional Government Pleader, opposed the addition of the omitted clause. The Court, noting that the omission was a clerical error, decided to allow the civil application to correct the order. Consequently, the order was modified to include prayer clause D along with the existing clauses A and B. The application was granted, and the order was accordingly amended.
Issues considered
- Whether a civil application can be entertained to modify a prior order to incorporate an inadvertently omitted prayer clause
- Whether the State can oppose the addition of the omitted clause
Subjects
- civil application
- modification of order
- inadvertent omission
- prayer clause
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:34057-DB
1 5.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
5 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1515 OF 2026
IN WP/288/2024
SANJAY BAHGWAN CHAVAN AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
…
Advocate for the Applicant : Mr. Barlinge Sudhir Raghunath
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr.
…
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 31.07.2026
PER COURT :
. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and the learned AGP.
for respondent/State.
2. By this Civil Application, the petitioner seeks modification of
order dated 24.09.2025. While passing this order, this Court has relied
on similar orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
wherein, in the cases of similarly circumstanced petitioners, this Court
has allowed the Writ Petitions in terms of prayer clauses ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘D’.
3. While allowing the Writ Petition, the same is allowed in terms of
prayer clauses ‘A’, ‘B’. Inadvertently prayer clause ‘D’ remained to be
incorporated in the order.
4. Though learned AGP opposes the said prayer, considering the fact
that, it is an inadvertent mistake, we are inclined to allow this Civil
Application.
2 5.doc
5. The Civil Application is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer
clause ‘B’ which reads thus :
“B) The order dated 24.09.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ
Petition No.288 of 2024 may kindly be modified by adding prayer
clause (D) in addition to the prayer clauses (A) and (B) in the
operative part of the order.”
( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. )
vsj..
Checking your session…