RPS. 3, 4-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION No. 3 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL No. 164 OF 1997 Sarjerao Maruti Sathe (since deceased, represented through legal heirs) & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. Pralhad Laxman Sathe & Ors. ... Respondents AND REVIEW PETITION No. 4 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL No. 168 OF 1997 Sarjerao Maruti Sathe (Since deceased, represented through the legal heirs) ...Petitioner Vs. Arjun Maruti Sathe (since deceased, represented through the legal heirs) ...Respondents *** Mr. S. R. Ganbavale, for the Petitioner. Mr. P. J. Pawar, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. R. D. Soni a/w A. B. Kadam i/b U. B. Nighot, for Respondent No.3. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JUNE 10, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and RPS. 3, 4-11 - 2 - respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and respondent No.3. Both review petitions are filed by the petitioners for correction of the typographical errors in the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : C. L. Pangarkar, J.), dated 11th February, 2010. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that inadvertently in the operative part of the order, survey number is wrongly mentioned as ‘47’ instead of ‘189’; and similarly there is a typographical mistake in the internal paragraph of the said judgment & order at 3 places. The said internal sentences are - “... Therefore it is clear that there is no joint family after 1945 at all. Survey No. 189 was purchased from the landlord by Sarjerao by a registered sale deed Exhibit 57. ...” “... Sarjerao having paid the price and purchased the property by sale deed becomes exclusive owner of Survey No. 189 and neither the plaintiff nor other defendants have any share in property Survey No. 189...” 3. It is submitted that instead of Survey No. ‘189’, Survey No. ‘47’ ought to have been substituted, since in paragraph 15 similar reference is made as Survey No. 47. Learned counsel for respondents submits that it is an obvious typographical error and therefore, the said corrections may be made in the said judgment and order. The learned RPS. 3, 4-11 - 3 - counsel for the petitioner further submits that so far as other prayers in the Review Petitions are concerned, they are not pressed. Accordingly, the Review Petition is partly allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge (Coram : C. L. Pangarkar, J.) who is already retired, is modified in paragraph 15 in the portion which reproduced hereinabove, and instead of Survey No. ‘189’, Survey No. ‘47’ is substituted at the three places which are indicated hereinabove. Similarly, in the operative part of the order, in the following sentences, instead of Survey No. ‘47’, Survey No. ‘189’ are substituted as under- “ORDER Both appeals are partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is set aside. It is held and declared that the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 Sarjerao and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 each have 1/3rd share in Survey No. ‘47’ . A precept be sent to the Collector for effecting partition of Survey No. 47 and for putting each of party in separate possession thereof.” 4. The Survey number which is mentioned in the aforesaid RPS. 3, 4-11 - 4 - paragraphs is substituted by Survey No. ‘189’, since the learned Single Judge (Coram : C.L. Pangarkar, J.) had already retired, the matter is placed before this Court by the order of Hon’ble Chief Justice. The said judgment and order dated 11th February, 2010 is accordingly, modified. 5. Both the Review Petitions are, accordingly, partly allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. 6. The Darkhast proceedings are, therefore, expedited and a decree may be executed within three months. [ V. M. KANADE J.]