IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 1487 OF 1996 SUIT NO. 1487 OF 1996 SUIT NO. 1487 OF 1996 M/s.C.K.Industries Pvt.Ltd. ... Plaintiff. V/s. M/s.Bomex Auto Industries Pvt.Ltd. and others. ... Defendants. Ms.Savita Patkar i/b. Bharat & Co. for the plaintiff. None for the defendants. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 5th March 2008. DATED: 5th March 2008. DATED: 5th March 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard. 2. Perused order dated 27th April, 1998 passed by learned single Judge (R.J.Kochar, J.) (as he then was). 3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits vide order dated 27th April, 1998, the learned single was pleased to pass ex parte decree against defendant Nos.1 and 2 and not against defendant No.3. In the text of the order there is mention that defendant No.3 has entered its appearance and filed written statement pursuant to order dated 6th October, 1997. Therefore ex parte decree could not have been passed against defendant No.3. However, a typographical error crept in the para-4 of the order; wherein instead of mentioning defendant Nos.1 and 2, it is wrongly mentioned as defendant Nos.1 and 3. 4. In view of the above, the order needs modification to that effect. The words and figures "Defendant Nos.1 and 3" appearing in para-4, page-3 of the order dated 27th April, 1998 stand modified and substituted with that of "Defendant Nos.1 and 2". Rest of the order stands as it is. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)