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