IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 17 OF 2010 SHRI CHANDRAKANT S. SHETGAONKAR AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus SMT. SARASWATI NARAYAN SHETGAONKAR AND 12 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. A. B. Bhobe,Advocate for the petitioners. Coram:- U. D. SALVI, J. Date:- 17th February, 2010 P.C. Heard. Perused petition. It is submitted that error in recording evidence i.e. the suggestion put to the witness resulted in application under Section 138 of Indian Evidence Act at annexure D to the petition and eventually, this application was rejected with a finding that the clear assertion made by the witness in the cross-examination left no scope of ambiguity or discrepancy. This order rejecting the said application was assailed in W.P. No.36/2008 before this Court. It appears that this application was allowed to be withdrawn and by consent the petitioners were granted liberty to apply to the Trial Court regarding the suggestion put by the respondent. 2. In another round of application for correction of deposition of P.W.1, it was pleaded that the correction of the deposition was necessitated for the purposes of removing an ambiguity in the deposition of the witness. Parties were heard and the learned Trial Court rejected this application with a reason that attempt made by the petitioners/ plaintiffs to re-examine/ correct this deposition would ex-facie change tenor of the admission, which emerged as a result of clear assertion in the evidence. No fault can be found with this finding. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. U. D. SALVI, J. SMA