1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.W. No. 1156 of 2011 in Writ Petition no. 176 of 2011 Pandharinath Vithobaji Neware VERSUS Chandrashekhar Manohar Tanksale. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 29 , 2011 . Shri Bhangde, the learned counsel for the applicant states that the petitioner had not challenged the decree passed in Reg. Civil Suit no. 473/2002 and hence the observations made by this court in that regard in para 3 of the judgment are not factually correct and the judgment needs to be modified. Shri Bhandarkar, the learned counsel for the non- applicant states by taking this court through the prayer clause that the petitioner had indeed sought a declaration in regard to the decree passed in Reg. Civil Suit No. 473/2002 by prayer clause (b). Even otherwise, this court has after noticing prayer clause (b) incorporated the statement which is said to be factually incorrect, by the learned counsel for the applicant. Hence, there is no need of modification in the judgment in this regard. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant states that the submission made on behalf of the applicant by placing reliance on the judgment reported in 1991 Mh.L.J. 263 is not recorded at all. It is necessary to note that the judgment was dictated in the open court and the counsel for the applicant and the counsel for the respondent were present in the court throughout. If a particular submission was not recorded, the counsel for the applicant should have pointed out the non- inclusion of the submission at that stage. The prayer made by the respondent/applicant for modification/correction of the judgment appears to be unreasonable and liable to be rejected. Civil application is disposed of. JUDGE Hirekhan