1 13.cas8.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2009 Shri Pandurang Govind Nikam ....Applicant. Vs. Shri Dadasaheb K. Patil & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Manoj Patil, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Patil, Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondents. Respondent No. 3 Dilip Krishnarao Patil had died on 26/5/1999 during the pendency of the Appeal in the District Court where a cross­objection is filed by the present Appellant. 4 heirs of the said Respondent No. 3 had been brought on record in Civil Appeal No. 194 of 1996. By mistake their names were not mentioned in the title of the Second Appeal. This is obviously a clerical error and must be allowed to be corrected. However, in so far as the Respondent No. 3(5) in this 2 13.cas8.11 Civil Application is concerned, that cannot be a clerical error as the said Sanchita Dilip Patil was never brought on record even in the District Court. Hence there is no question of delay, no question of abatement and no question of setting aside the abatement. Hence I pass following order. Civil Application is partly allowed in terms of prayer clause (C) only. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. The question whether Civil Appeal No. 194 of 1996 or Cross­ Objection filed therein had abated or not will be considered when the Appeal is heard for admission. For this purpose, retain a copy of this order in the order sheet of the Second Appeal. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)