(1) 27 wp 8362-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 8362 OF 2026 Sudhakar S/o Atmaramji Munde VERSUS Shir. Premchand Ashirvad Paturkar And Others. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V.R. Hamand, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 12.10.2026 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petition challenges order dated 23.07.2026, passed below Exhibit 75 in Special Civil Suit No. 49/2022 by the 9th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati. The said application i.e. Exhibit 75 was an application for review which sought review of order passed below Exhibit 74, passed on 05.01.2026. The main application i.e. Exhibit 74 which was filed on 19.11.2025 was an application seeking correction in the depositions which according to the petitioner were typographical mistakes. There was a specific contention that there has been incorrect recording in the deposition and therefore the correction was sought. By way of an order dated 05.01.2026, the 16th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati, was pleased to reject the application by reasoned order. In the said application, (2) 27 wp 8362-2026 paragraph Nos. 8, 9, and 10 would be relevant which are reproduced as under: “8. In the present case, the corrections sought are not limited to clerical errors. The plaintiff prays to substitute the words "It is true to say that" with "It is not true to say that" in para 4 and para 6 of the deposition, and further seeks to add or modify voluntary statements of the witness. Such corrections, if allowed, would materially change the nature of the answers given during cross- examination. The deposition was recorded in open court in the presence of advocates and parties. If there was any error, objection ought to have been raised immediately at the time of recording. 9. It is pertinent to note that these are answers given by the witness while recording his cross- examination, and the suggestions put by the other side are required to be recorded as they are. Such substantive answers cannot be altered under the guise of typographical corrections. The corrections sought are of substantive nature, amounting to withdrawal or alteration of admissions made during cross-examination. This goes beyond the scope of typographical error contemplated under law. Allowing such corrections would vitiate the evidentiary value of the deposition and prejudice the defendants. 10. Therefore, the application does not fall within the ambit of correction of clerical or typographical mistakes permissible under law. It is an attempt to rewrite the deposition, which is impermissible. Hence, these corrections cannot be accepted hence, application is rejected and I pass the following order.” 3. Apart from the fact that the application at Exhibit 74 was highly delayed, the petitioner herein chose to file another application at Exhibit 75 seeking review of the (3) 27 wp 8362-2026 earlier order. The said application is also rejected vide impugned order dated 23.07.2026. 4. While being confronted regarding the inordinate delay caused in filing the applications, the learned Counsel for the petitioner was not able to satisfy this Court. However, the fact remains that the initial application which sought deposition (which was recorded on 16.02.2024) was filed on 04.11.2025. So, there is an inordinate delay in filing the initial application itself. Thereafter, application for review is sought. I have gone through the orders, passed in review application, I find no perversity or jurisdictional error, the petition being meritless is rejected. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Jayashree.. Signed by: Mrs. Jayashree Pethe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 13/10/2026 19:24:34