Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SACHIN RATNAKAR DESHMUKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The High Court may correct a clerical error in its own order without prejudice to the parties, and the motion for such correction is allowed.

Summary

In Writ Petition No.7643 of 2026, the petitioner, Sachin Ratnakar Deshmukh, moved a motion before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking correction of a clerical error in the order dated 22/07/2026. The petitioner contended that the date mentioned in the second line of the first paragraph, "20.04.2022," was erroneous and should read "20.04.2026." The Court examined its inherent power to amend orders to rectify typographical mistakes that do not affect substantive rights. Finding no prejudice to any party and recognizing the error as purely clerical, the Court allowed the motion. Consequently, the order was corrected to reflect the accurate date and a corrected copy was to be uploaded.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriate procedure for correcting a clerical error in a court order?
  • Does the High Court have the inherent jurisdiction to amend its own orders for typographical mistakes?

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • clerical error
  • court order correction
  • inherent jurisdiction
  • civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:30461-DB
                   This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //


                                                              1                 WP-7643-26.odt


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                      WRIT PETITION NO.7643 OF 2026

                                        SACHIN RATNAKAR DESHMUKH
                                                    VERSUS
                                 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                                      …
                                  Mr. Avinash Salve, Advocate for Petitioner
                                  Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondent/State
                                                      …

                                                CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                                        ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                                  DATE : 28th JULY, 2026

              PER COURT :

              1.                This motion is moved for speaking to the minutes of the

              order dated 22/07/2026.

              2.                Learned advocate for petitioner submits that in the said

              order in the second line of 2rst paragraph, date ‘20.04.2022’ is

              mentioned, which should be ‘20.04.2026’.

              3.                In the said order, in second line of 2rst paragraph, the

              date ‘20.04.2022’ be replaced by ‘20.04.2026’.

              4.                Accordingly, the motion is allowed. Corrected copy be

              uploaded.



              (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)                             (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




              SVH


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.