1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.456/2011 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ORS ..VS.. PRASHANT SINGRU & ANOR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.D.Meghe, advocate for petitioner Shri K.R. Lule, advocate for respondent no.1 Shri Ambarish Joshi, AGP for respondent no.2 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 07, 2011. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Trial court on 20.11.2010, permitting the respondent no.1/ plaintiff to examine himself in chief for clarifying the typographical mistakes in the affidavit which is filed in lieu of the examination in chief. The respondent no.1 had by a prayer made to the trial court sought some minor corrections in the affidavit which was filed for tendering the evidence in examination in chief which were in consonance with the plaint pleadings. It is necessary to note that though in the plaint pleadings it was mentioned that the length was 550 feet, it was mistakenly stated in the evidence on affidavit that the length was 50 feet. So also, there was a minor mistake in stating the registration number of J.P. Machine in the affidavit submitted as examination in chief. Since this typographical errors should not create confusion, while appreciating the evidence, the respondent no.1 sought permission for further examination of chief so as to clarify the typographical mistakes. The trial court did not commit any error in granting the permission to the respondent no.1 as the said mistakes were merely typographical mistakes and the respondent no.1 wished to clarify the typographical mistakes by seeking permission for 2 further examination of chief. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the corrections which were sought by the respondent no.1 were in consonance with the plaint pleadings and there appeared to be some typographical errors in the evidence on affidavit, the trial court rightly granted the permission to the respondent no.1 to clarify the mistakes. The order appears to be just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP