{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.326 OF 2009 Taramati Uddhav Zambre PETITIONER VERSUS Navnath Gayaji Bidve and others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 17 th June 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.10.2008 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Beed in Miscellaneous Application No.127/2007. 2. As none appeared on behalf of the respondents, though duly served, with the assistance of learned advocate for the petitioner, perused the record. It appears that the petitioner has filed RCS No.551/1998 against all the respondents for partition of the property mentioned in plaint Para No.1, in which the petitioner has claimed 1/11th share. The said suit came to be decreed initially and the petitioner was given 1/11th share in 1/6th share of Gayabai. The said judgment and order was challenged by the petitioner in {2} Regular Civil Appeal No.210/2003 before the District Judge, Beed. The appeal came to be allowed and the petitioner was given 1/11th share in the suit property. Thereafter, execution petition came to be filed for execution of the decree. At that time it transpired that inadvertently, in the description of the property, it was mentioned that the property is situated at village Beed Taraf Bobade, however, in fact, the property is situated at Beed Taraf Balgujar. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Application No.127/2007 was moved u/s 151 and 152 of Civil Procedure Code for correction in the decree. In the said application as well as in the suit though opponents No.1 to 6 appeared, yet did not file any say / written statement to oppose the correction in the decree and opponent Nos. 7 to 11 did not even appear inspite of service. Hence, the application was ordered to proceed ex-parte. By order dated 01.10.2008, this application came to be rejected by observing that everywhere the description of the property is mentioned as “situated at village Beed Taraf Bobade”. On perusal of the judgment of the appellate court as well as of the trial court, other than opponent Nos. 9 and 10 remaining opponents have not disputed the relationship and description of the suit property. 3. At the time of submissions across the bar, learned advocate appearing for petitioner, placed certified copy of the decree drawn. In the said proceedings, sketch map of suit property was annexed. It is duly verified by the petitioner. The title of this sketch map shows 14 R land out of survey No.165 Beed Taraf {3} Balgujar. 4. Certified copy of the decree drawn by the competent court is a public document. The certified copy of the decree was drawn on the basis of the plaint presented in the court by the plaintiff, who is the petitioner in this petition. Thus, considering the description of the property, shown in the sketch map annexed with the plaint on the basis of which the decree was drawn, the property is shown as situated at village “Beed Taraf Balgujar”, which is sufficient to show that the name of the village mentioned in the decree where the property is situated as “Beed Taraf Bobade” is a typographical error and required to be corrected u/s 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, however was not corrected by rejecting the Miscellaneous Civil Application, itself goes to show that the application was rejected without application of mind. In the premise, the order passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.127/2007 dated 01.10.2008 requires to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Writ petition is allowed and stands disposed of. Certified copy of the decree drawn by the trial court is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/wp326-09 {4}