1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ADMIRALTY AND VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.12 OF 2007 IN ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.3 OF 2003 Binny Ship Management Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. 1.Alice Elizabeth D Souza & ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.Gaurav Joshi i/b. M/s.G.C.Mohanty, for Petitioner. Mr.Paranjpe i/b. M/s.Bhatt & Saldanha, for Respondent nos.3 and 4. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 11th December,2009 P.C.:- 1. This Review Petition was taken out by the Original Defendant no.3 for review of the order dated 8.11.2006 which passes decree also against the defendant no.3. The defendant no.3 states that this 2 Court has recorded in paragraph 4 of the judgment the following findings:- A Fax dated 21.9.1999 is sent by the defendant no.3 who is admittedly the agent of defendant no.2 to Maritime Union of India.--- ---- --- ---- --- --- Thus, the defendant no.3 who is agent of the defendant no.2 accepts the liability of defendant no.2 to make payment of death compensation to the plaintiffs in accordance with M.U.I. Agreement. On the basis of these findings recorded, the case of the defendant no.3 is that as he is agent of disclosed principal viz. Defendant no.2 and as he has undertaken liability on behalf of defendant no.2, decree against defendant no.3 could not have been passed. The Review petition is not opposed by the plaintiffs. The original defendant no.2 opposed the Review petition. However, perusal of the written statement of defendant no.2 shows that the defendant no.2 does not dispute 3 that the defendant no.3 was the agent of defendant no. 2. What is further to be seen is that though the defendant no.2 has filed an appeal against the judgment, the defendant no.2 has not filed any application making grievance that in my order I have wrongly noted that it is an admitted position before me that the defendant no.3 is an agent of defendant no.2. I find that the decree passed against the defendant no.3 after finding that he was an agent of disclosed principal viz. Defendant no.2 is an error apparent on the face of the record which requires to be corrected in the Review jurisdiction. 2. The Review application is, therefore, allowed. The operative part of the judgment and decree dated 8.11.2006 in Admiralty Suit no.3 of 2003 is modified. As a result, now the suit will stand decreed only against defendant nos. 1 and 2. It is accordingly, so ordered. The Review Petition is disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)