IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1553 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2220 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.3938 OF 2001 Jamuna Darshan Co-op.Hsg.Scty.Ltd. & Ors. ...Plaintiffs V/s. M/s.J.M.C.& Meghani Builders & Ors. ...Defendants ...... Mr.V.Y.Sanglikar i/b Mr.A.G.Damle for Applicants/ Defendants 5 to 7. Mr.Ajay Panicker for Defendant No.1. None for Plaintiff. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 22, 2009. JANUARY 22, 2009. JANUARY 22, 2009. P.C. 1. This Application for speaking to minutes is taken out by the Defendants 5 to 7 almost after one year from the date of passing of the order dated 21st September 2007 and has been moved now for orders. 2. Going by the prayer clause, it may appear that an innocuous change is to be inserted in : 2 : paragraph 1 at page 2 of my order dated 21st September 2007 but after considering the arguments of the parties, it is obvious that the change that the Applicants intend to be incorporated is a contentious matter. There is serious dispute between the parties as to whether the Applicants would be entitled for the sale proceeds in entirety or only in part. 3. In the first place, the statement recorded in Paragraph 1 of which correction is sought, is a statement recorded in open Court on the basis of agreement between the parties. If the Applicants were unhappy with the wordings or phraseology, they ought to have approached the Court immediately after the order was passed on 21st September 2007 and not after waiting for one year. Besides, I am informed that the order in question was challenged by one of the party to the Suit which proceedings went right up to the Apex Court. At this distance of time, therefore, I am disinclined to entertain the application in question. Hence, the same is rejected. : 3 : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.