Bombay High Court

SHRI. PRAVIN DEVIDAS KALALversusYASHWANTRAO CHAVAN MAHARASHTRA OPEN UNIVERSITY, NASHIK

Decided: 19 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The trial court must correct the obvious error in the recorded cross‑examination.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik, which rejected his application to correct an obvious error in the recorded cross‑examination dated 24 June 2014. The petitioner argued that the trial court mis‑recorded his voluntary statement and incorrectly noted an endorsement that the plaintiff had admitted the record as correct. The High Court examined the transcript and found that the trial court had indeed omitted crucial words and wrongly entered an endorsement. It held that the trial court was obligated to rectify the mistake in the cross‑examination record. Consequently, the order rejecting the correction was set aside, the application was made absolute, and the trial court was directed to amend the record. No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application to correct an obvious error in the recorded cross‑examination.
Whether the High Court can set aside the trial court's order and direct correction of the record.

Subjects

correction of record
cross‑examination
civil procedure
writ petition
High Court
error correction

Judgment

Vaishnavi                                              28-WP-8966-2016


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                       WRIT PETITION NO. 8966 OF 2016

Shri. Pravin Devidas Kalal                           ...Petitioner

                      V/s.

Yashwantrao Chavan            Maharashtra
Open University, Nashik                              ...Respondent
                                 ________________
Mr. Sachin Gite, for Petitioner.
Mr. Mihir R. Govilkar, for Respondent.
                                 ________________


                                           CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                           DATED: 19 AUGUST 2026


P.C.:


1)          The Petition challenges order dated 9 January 2015 passed by the
4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik, rejecting application at
Exhibit 31 filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 223 of 2010. The application was
preferred by the plaintiff for correcting an obvious error while recording
the cross-examination on 24 June 2014. The Trial Court, however,
observed that an endorsement is made on 24 June 2014 about the
evidence being read over and admitted to be correct. The Trial Court has
accordingly proceeded to reject the application.




                                    Page No.1 of 3
                                   19 August 2026
Vaishnavi                                                28-WP-8966-2016


2)          I have heard Mr. Gite, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. Govilkar, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent and have considered the submissions canvassed by them.


3)          Perusal of the cross examination recorded by the learned Trial
Court on 24 June 2014 would indicate that the witness was apparently
asked a question as to whether he had produced any map about
possessory right/right of way. The witness answered in the negative,
stating, “OfgokVhcn~ny dks.krkgh udk’kk ;k dkeh nk[ky dsysyk ukgh ”.

Thereafter, the witness made a voluntary statement (in absence of any
question being put by the Advocate for Defendant) by stating that
“lk{khnkj lkaxrks dh dkj.k rlk dks.kR;kgh ofgokVh ukgh ”.



4)          Plain reading of the sentence, “ lk{khnkj lkaxrks dh dkj.k rlk

dks.kR;kgh ofgokVh ukgh” actually makes no sense. According to the
Plaintiff, the voluntary statement made by him was actually like this
“lk{khnkj lkaxrks dh rlk dks.krkgh ofgokVh n’kZo.kkjk udk’kk ukgh ”. I am in full

agreement with the contention raised on behalf of the Plaintiff-
Petitioner. There was no reason or occasion for Plaintiff to make a
voluntary statement admitting that there is no such right of way. When
the plaintiff was given a suggestion in the cross-examination that he did
not produce any map showing right of way, he actually wanted to clarify
that he did not produce any map showing right of way as the same does
not exist. However, the learned Judge has apparently missed out these
words while recording the cross-examination.




                                    Page No.2 of 3
                                   19 August 2026
Vaishnavi                                                 28-WP-8966-2016


5)          The learned Judge has also erroneously recorded that there is an
endorsement on the cross-examination recorded on 24 June 2014 that
the same was read over to the Plaintiff and that he admitted the same to
be correct.


6)          Considering the above position, I am of the view that the Trial
Court ought to have corrected the obvious error in recording of the
cross-examination.


7)          Impugned order dated 9 January 2025 is accordingly set aside.
Application at Exhibit 31 is made absolute in terms prayers made
therein. The Trial court shall accordingly proceed to effect necessary
change in the cross-examination recorded on 24 June 2014.


8)          The Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. There shall be no
order as to costs.




                                                     [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




                                    Page No.3 of 3
                                   19 August 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…