Bombay High Court
SHRI. DEEPAK NARENDRA BAGALversusTHE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLHAPUR AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- VRUSHALI V JOSHI
Holding
The court may correct purely clerical errors in its judgment by issuing a correction order.
Summary
The Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Circuit Bench, entertained a correction application filed by the respondents to amend inadvertent typographical errors in its earlier judgment dated 6 February 2026. The errors involved an incorrect reference to a revenue survey number and a misidentification of counsel in the judgment text. The court examined whether such corrections could be made under procedural law without altering the substantive decision. It held that the errors were purely clerical and could be rectified without prejudice to the parties. Accordingly, the court ordered the correction of the specified passages in the original judgment.
Issues considered
- Whether the court may correct inadvertent clerical errors in its judgment without altering the substantive outcome
Subjects
- judgment correction
- clerical error
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- writ petition
- high court procedure
Judgment
P2-wp-9791-9792-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9791 OF 2019
Deepak Narendra Bagal …..Petitioner
Vs.
The District Collector, Kolhapur & Ors. …..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9792 OF 2019
Deepak Narendra Bagal …..Petitioner
Vs.
The District Collector, Kolhapur & Ors. …..Respondents
Ms. Siddheshwari R. Chavan, i/b. Mr. Chetan G. Patil, for the
Respondent No.4 in both Petitions.
CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 16th FEBRUARY 2026
PC :-
1. The praecipe is moved for speaking to minutes of Judgment
dated 6th February 2026.
2. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 submits that in
paragraph No.9 in line No.4, the words ‘R.S.No.104/4 + 7/3’ are
inadvertently mentioned instead of ‘R.S.No.104/4 + 7/1’. So also in
paragraph No.15, line No.1, the words ‘the counsel for the Petitioner’
are inadvertently mentioned instead of ‘the counsel for the
Respondent No.4’.
Gaikwad RD 1/2
P2-wp-9791-9792-2019.doc
3. The said corrections be carried out in the original Judgment
accordingly.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)
Digitally
signed by
RAJU
RAJU DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.02.17
19:41:48
+0530
Gaikwad RD 2/2
Checking your session…