1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.F.NO.2918 of 2009 in F.A.NO.137 of 1989 (d) Narayandas Gopikisanji Jawandia (deceased) through L.Rs. ..vs.. Kamalnain Madanlal Sharma =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.S.B.Mohta Adv. for the appellant. Mr.V.V.Deo Adv. for resp.no.1/applicant. Mr.A.S.Sonare AGP for respondent no.4. C ORAM : C.L.Pangarkar, J. DATED : 6th April, 2010. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. This application has been filed purporting to be an application for speaking to minutes. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the appeal should have been dismissed because the order under Section 86(3) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 is not saved. The learned counsel submits that in fact, therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent no.1, in fact, seeks to 2 review the order and thus set aside the order already passed by this court. He submits that such is not the scope of an application for speaking to minutes. I find substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that when an application for speaking to minutes is filed, the court is only supposed to clarify the order or correct arithmetical or clerical mistake. Here, respondent no.1 is seeking to set aside the order passed by this court. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the application. The application is, therefore, rejected. Respondent no.1 is granted liberty to file appropriate application, as may be advised. JUDGE. chute