1 IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. (1) CAW No.1830/2009 in Writ Petition No.3313/2009 Purshottam Wamanrao Khule .vrs. State of Mah. And others. (2) CAW No.1831/2009 in Writ Petition No.3092/2009 Ku. Chandrakala Shrirang Wasnik .vrs. State of Mah. And others. (3) CAW No.1832/2009 in Writ Petition No.3093/2009 Smt.Sangita Sanjay Khatad.vrs. State of Mah. And others. (4) CAW No.1833/2009 in Writ Petition No.3094/2009 Shamsundar s/o Kamkamalkishore Agrawal and others.vrs. State of Mah. And others. (5) CAW No.1834/2009 in Writ Petition No.3067/2009 Abbas Husain Mohomad Hussain .vrs. State of Mah. And others. (6) CAW No.1835/2009 in Writ Petition No.2717/2009 Prabhakar Rambhau Dhomne .vrs. State of Mah. And others. (7) Writ Petition No.2951/2009 Satish Kashinath Phatak and others.vrs. State of Maharashra and others. …............................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court's of Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. …............................................................................................................................................................ Coram : A.P. Lavande and P.D. Kode, JJ. Dated : August 28, 2009. Heard Mr. G.K. Mundhadha, learned counsel for all the petitioners and Mr. Thakre, learned AGP for the respondents. These applications for speaking to minutes have been preferred by the petitioners on the count of errors having occurred inadvertently in the common judgment delivered on 12th August, 2009. According to Mr. Mundhada, in all the petitions inadvertently the directions have been given to Sub-Registrar, Amravati although Sub-Registrars of different Talukas/Districts had refused to register sale deeds concerned with respective petitions. It is to be noted that the judgment was dictated in the open court and the Advocate for the petitioners had submitted that the directions were 2 sought only against Sub Registrar, Amravati and that is how inadvertent errors crept in the judgment. According to Mr. Mundhada, directions to different Sub- Registrars ought to have been given. This position has not been disputed by Mr. Thakre, learned AGP for the respondents. In view of the above position common judgment dated 12th August,2009 is ordered to be corrected by : (i) replacing word “Sub-Registrar Amravati” with word “Sub- Registrars of Paratwada , Karanja (Lad), Malkapur and Yavatmal” occurring in 2nd line of paragraph no.2; (ii) replacing word “Sub Registrar” with word “Sub Registrars” occuring in 6th line in paragraph no.3; 12th line in paragraph no.6 and 2nd line of paragraph no.7; (iii) similarly deleting word “Amravati” occurring after said word “Sub-Registrars” mentioned in 6th line of paragraph no.3 ; (iv) replacing the word “Amravati” with words “Paratwada, Karanja (Lad), Malkapur and Yavatmal” occurring in line No.2 in paragraph No. 7 and (v) replacing word “he” occurring in 3rd line of paragraph no.7 with words “each of them”. Registry to carry out correction/amendment accordingly in the judgment. Since inadvertently errors have been crept in the judgment on account of wrong information given by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we impose costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only) each on the petitioners. The petitioners shall pay costs within a period of two weeks in favour of High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,Nagpur. All the applications stand disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar