IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3645 OF 2008 Kundlik Tukaram Jadhav ...Petitioner Versus Atmaram Tukaram Jadhav & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Ms.Jahan-Ara A.Sarkhot for Petitioner. Mr.Nitin P.Deshpande for Respondent No.6. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. AUGUST 5, 2008. AUGUST 5, 2008. AUGUST 5, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. I see no merit in this Petition. Even if the Petitioner had grievance about incorrect recording of his evidence by the concerned Trial Court Judge, the Petitioner was expected to move formal application before the same Trial Court Judge for correcting the mistake which has occurred in the recording of evidence. The evidence in question has been recorded as back as on 16th : 2 : September 2005. However, the Petitioner has chosen to take out application for correction of the record after lapse of over two years on 29th October 2007. Admittedly, the concerned Trial Court Judge has been transferred in the meantime. In the circumstances, the correctness of the stand taken in the Application made by the Petitioner cannot be resolved by the subsequent Judge who has taken over the proceedings recently. 3. Be that as it may, the Petitioner is not in a position to point out any provision which would permit the Trial Court Judge to amend the evidence as recorded. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That provision, in my opinion, cannot be pressed into service for amending the evidence which has already come on record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relied on Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even this argument is misplaced. Inasmuch as, the evidence which has already been recorded on oath, cannot be allowed to be amended as in the case of pleadings. The Petitioner will : 3 : be free to adduce such further evidence to explain the position which has already come on record, if so advised. That course may be adopted if permissible in law. 4. Insofar as the time gap between the date of recording of the evidence and the present application of over two years is sought to be explained by the Counsel for the Petitioner on the argument that the Petitioner had made representation to the District Judge as well as the Chief Justice of this Court making grievance of wrong recording of evidence. The copy of the said representation is not annexed to the present Petition. The same was made available for the perusal of the Court. The same is dated 19th September 2005. From the said representation, the Petitioner has not specifically pointed out as to which statement recorded by the concerned Trial Court Judge was incorrect or wrongly attributed to the Petitioner. The cross-examination as recorded on the relevant date is found at page 40 of the paper-book. The Petitioner is relying on the averments in Paragraph 2 of the application Exhibit : 4 : C to explain the deficiency in the recording of the evidence at page 40. 5. As aforesaid, there is no provision of amending the evidence which has already come on record, that too, after such distance of time. As aforesaid, Petitioner if so advised, may take recourse to such other course as may be permissible in law. 6. Petition disposed of on the above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.