1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3387 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 531 OF 2009 1. Subhash S/o Narsing Korkale and others .. .. Applicants Versus 1. Ramkishan S/o Sopan Sadale and others .. .. Respondents Shri N. P. Patil (Jamalpurkar), Advocate for the Applicants. Shri A. S. Bajaj, Advocate holding for Shri R. P. Adgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 4. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 08TH OCTOBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER [Per B. R. Gavai, J. ] : 1. The learned counsel for the applicants (Original Appellants in first appeal) moved this Court of speaking to minutes. It is submitted that, the order passed by this Court dated 14th August, 2009 in paragraph No. 2 the word respondent has erroneously occurred, in fact it is to be word applicants. 2 2. The application is vehemently opposed by Shri Bajaj the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. He submits that, in fact this Court while allowing the application observed that, the suit was filed after six years from the date on which the award was passed and that the respondents had already withdrawn the amount and, therefore, case for stay was made out. 3. We have perused the record. A particular word in an order cannot be read in isolation but entire sentence has to be read, so as to find the meaning of that sentence. The perusal of paragraph 2 would reveal that, this Court after finding that the suit was filed after six years from the date on which the award under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act was passed and that the amount has already been withdrawn, allowed the application. From the record it can be seen that the amount of compensation under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act has been withdrawn by the present applicants. Not only this, but in review application filed by the respondents herein being review application No. 137/2009 the said respondents have categorically stated that, on failure by the said respondents to get an interim injunction the respondents in the review application i. e. the present applicants have withdrawn the amount. It is further to be noted that, the application for speaking to minutes is sworn by the learned counsel who was present in the Court. As against this the reply which is filed on behalf of respondent is sworn by one of the respondent. Bare reading of paragraph 2 would reveal that the word respondents is erroneously typed, wherein the word applicants ought 3 to have been typed. The motion is allowed. In paragraph No. 2 it shall be read as applicants. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/Oct. 09