Bombay High Court
KAMLAKAR MALLIKARJUNAPPA YENAGUREversusLOHARA TALUKA SHIKSHAK AND SEVAKANCHI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court corrected Paragraph 1 of the order to reflect the settlement and ordered the corrected copy to be uploaded.
Summary
In a writ petition filed by Kamlakar Mallikarjunappa Yenagure against Lohara Taluka Shikshak and SevaKanshi Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, the parties reached an out‑of‑court settlement wherein the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.1,99,024 to the respondent society, which the society accepted as full and final settlement. The original order dated 04.03.2026 mistakenly stated that the respondent had deposited the amount, prompting the petitioner’s counsel to seek a correction. The Court, after hearing the counsel, corrected Paragraph 1 of the order to accurately reflect the settlement terms and the mutual withdrawal of pending proceedings. The correction was ordered to be effected and the corrected copy uploaded. The motion for correction was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dated 04.03.2026 can be corrected to accurately reflect the parties' settlement and the direction to withdraw pending proceedings
Subjects
- settlement
- correction of order
- writ petition
- civil procedure
- withdrawal of proceedings
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:9130
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
M1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4093 OF 2018
KAMLAKAR MALLIKARJUNAPPA YENAGURE
VERSUS
LOHARA TALUKA SHIKSHAK AND SEVAKANSHI SAHAKARI
PATSANSTHA MARYADIT THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS
….
Mr. N. K. Tungar, Advocate for the Petitioner
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 07.03.2026
PER COURT :
1. This motion is made for speaking to the minutes in respect of the
order dated 04.03.2026.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in
Paragraph No.1 of the aforesaid order, it was inadvertently mentioned
that respondent no.1 has deposited a sum of Rs.1,99,024/-, which the
petitioner has duly accepted but instead, it ought to have been
mentioned that the parties have settled the dispute out side the Court
and in view of settlement, the petitioner has agreed to deposit a sum of
Rs.1,99,024/- with respondent – Society, which the respondent –
Society has agreed to accept in full and final settlement of the dispute.
3. In view of thereof, Paragraph No.1 of the aforesaid order stands
corrected as follows :
“1. Both the learned Counsel submits that the parties have
arrived at a settlement outside the Court, whereby the
petitioner has agreed to deposit Rs.1,99,024/- with
respondent – Society, which the respondent – Society has
1
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
M1.odt
agreed to accept in full and final settlement of the dispute.
Consequently, both the petitioner and the respondents have
agreed to withdraw all pending proceedings against each
other.”
4. Necessary correction be carried out accordingly and corrected
copy be uploaded.
5. The motion stands disposed of.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Sameer/March-2026
2
Checking your session…