Bombay High Court
RAJKUMARI BRAMHAPRAKASH THAKUR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that clerical errors in its order may be corrected to reflect the intended wording, provided there is no prejudice to the parties.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the State of Maharashtra. A motion was filed to correct typographical errors in the order dated 22 September 2026, specifically the omission of the words “excluding the Portion” after “houses” and the substitution of “remaining” with “from”. Both parties’ counsel agreed that the errors were inadvertent and that correction would not prejudice any party. The Court examined whether such clerical corrections are permissible under procedural rules. Finding no substantive change to the order’s effect, the Court allowed the motion and directed that a corrected copy be uploaded.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court may correct clerical or typographical errors in its own order without a fresh hearing
Subjects
- clerical correction
- speaking to minutes
- high court order
- writ petition
- procedural law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43375-DB
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
{1} wp12739-26.doc
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12739 OF 2026
Rajkumar Bramhaprakash Thakur and Others PETITIONERS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. Vishal P. Bakal, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. AGP for Respondent - State
Mr. Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate for Respondents No.3 and 4
.......
[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.]
DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026
ORDER :
1. This motion is moved for the ‘speaking to the minutes’ in
respect of order dated 22nd September, 2026.
2. In paragraph No.1, in last but one line, following sentence
is typed “Portion of construction of their houses which is within
fifteen (15) meters area of development plan (D.P.) road” .
3. Learned Advocates for the Petitioners and Respondents
fairly submit that, after the word “ houses”, words “excluding the
Portion” is inadvertently remained to be typed in the order. It is
further submitted that in the third paragraph, words “ and
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
{2} wp12739-26.doc
remaining” are required to be substituted by the word “from”.
3. Accordingly, the order be corrected. Corrected copy be
uploaded. Motion is allowed.
[ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
drp/wp12739-26.doc
Checking your session…