1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2424 OF 2010 Sohail Ajijulhaha Navyajdan & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. Bharat Umakant Bhagwat ...Respondent Mr.P.G.Sarda for the petitioners None for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 5, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the defendants. The Advocate for the petitioners appearing before the trial Court noticed that there are certain inadvertent errors while recording the deposition of the plaintiff (respondent herein) at Exhibit-27. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that on 9th February 2010, the Advocate for the respondent-plaintiff has given no objection for allowing the said application. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 2 In paragraph 3 of the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has observed thus : 3...It is seen that the mistake is committed inadvertently by the concerned clerk and not purposely and even not seen by me while signing the deposition. But it makes no difference. And from the reading of record on can know that, the cross examination is taken in proper manner. Hence, considering the above facts as the cross examination is taken in 2 proper manner and the abovesaid mistake can be considered by everyone during reading the cross-examination, and considering all the above facts, application is rejected. 3 Thus, it is apparent that even the learned trial Judge has accepted that the concerned Clerk has committed inadvertent mistakes while recording the deposition. Perhaps, that was the reason why even the respondent recorded his no objection for allowing the said application at Exhibit-33. Even after recording that there is a mistake committed while recording the deposition, the learned trial Judge has chosen not to correct the deposition. 4 This petition need not be kept pending as Exhibit-F to the petition shows that the Advocate for the respondent had recorded his no objection in writing for allowing the application at Exhibit-33. Therefore, it is not necessary to serve notice to the respondent. 5 Hence, petition is disposed of by passing the following order : i) Impugned order is modified. The learned trial Judge is directed to carry out necessary correction to the deposition as noted by the learned trial Judge in paragraph 3 of the impugned order. ii)Writ petition is disposed of in above terms. JUDGE 3