1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR . CIVIL APPLICATION NO.184 OF 2010. IN ELECTION PETITION NO.5 OF 2009. [CHIMNAJI B. NALBOGA VS. SITARAM NANAJI SHAMKULEL] ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Dr. Sunderam Advocate for the petitioner – applicant. Coram : A.H.JOSHI,J. Date : 23rd April, 2010. 1. This Court has directed the Advocate for the petitioner to argue on the maintainability of the amendment application. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. He has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) 2000(3) Mh.L.J., 672 Rajendra VS. Ganadhar. (2) 1995 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 407, Gorelal Shakya Vs. Maharaj Singh Yadav and others. (3) (2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 740, Umesh Challiyill Vs. K. P. Rajendran. 3. It is seen that similar question had arisen before this Court in the case reported in 2000(3) Mh.L.J., 672 Rajendra VS. Ganadhar. This Court took a view that when all other particulars before the 2 Court in the petitioner were identifiable with the returned candidate, the amendment which was in the nature of correction of typographical error could be permissible. 4. In present case as well similar defect has crept in. The error sought to be corrected is about relocation of words misplaced due to typographical error. In view of this, application for amendment (Exh.8) is allowed. 5. Necessary amendment be carried out within two weeks. 6. Civil application is disposed of. No costs. Judge |mule|