1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R. CIVIL APPLICATIION No. 6975 OF 2007 (In WRIT PETITION NO. 3034 OF 2006) Tarabai wd/o Bindrabhan Barsainya  VERSUS - The State of Maharashtra & ors. ..... Mr. M.G. & V.V. Bhangde Advocates for the Applicant. Mr. A.M. Deshpande, A.G.P., for Respondents 1 to 5. Mr. Rohit Deo Advocate for Res. 6 & 7. None for Res. no.8 though duly served. .,... CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. RESERVED ON : 07.07.2008. PRONOUNCED ON : 23.07.2008. O R D E R : Heard Mr.Bhangde, learned senior counsel, for the applicant, Mr.Deshpande, A.G.P., for respondents 1 to 2 5 and Mr.Rohit Deo for respondents 6 and 7. 2. This is an application made by the original petitioner for speaking to minutes. In support of the application, Mr.Bhangde, learned senior counsel, made the following submissions : (i) that during the hearing of the writ petition, Mr.Rohit Deo, learned counsel for respondents 6 & 7 had conceded that correction of entries into record of rights need not be disturbed and the same would be subject to the decision of the civil Court. (ii) the correction of entries in the crop statement from 1963-64 onwards in the retrospective manner should not be supported but there is an error in the judgment in question made by this Court for ignoring those entries while deciding the suit. (iii) there is a further error in the judgment in 3 directing that the civil court should ignore the entries regarding record of rights and 7/12 extracts, i.e. the crop statements. (iv) there is a further error in the judgment in directing the civil court to decide the civil suit upon "independent" evidence, which means by ignoring the revenue record entries and 7/12 extracts - crop statements. 2. Per contra, Mr.Rohit Deo, learned counsel for respondents 6 & 7, opposed the application on the following submissions : (i) this application for speaking to minutes is in fact a review application and, as such, is not maintainable - all the more so because the petitioner has already preferred L.P.A. in this court. (ii) Application for speaking to minutes is only for correction of clerical errors and not 4 correcting the reasonings adopted by the Court. (iii) Civil suit is pending in the civil court and therefore option of civil court deciding the suit and the issues raised should be kept as it is. 3. Having considered the rival submissions on this application, I find that the application deserves to be considered and the objections raised by Mr.Deo about its maintainability deserves to be rejected. There is an error which will be clarified by me hereinafter in the merits of the order and hence I think it proper to entertain this application. 4. While recording this judgment, this Court found fault with the impugned orders under the judgment by holding that in the revenue records, 7/12 extracts, crops statement entries were corrected without holding any enquiry and that too right from 1962-63 till the date of passing of the order and as a sequel to the said finding it was not necessary to direct that the civil court shall be 5 totally uninfluenced by mutation entries as well as possession entries, i.e. revenue record, 7/12 extracts, crop statements and, therefore, consequently the orders were simply liable to be quashed and set aside. In this view of the matter, whether Mr.Deo had conceded or not is immaterial. Further, the civil court is going to ultimately decide the title in the suit and obviously the revenue record regarding mutation would be subject to the result of the civil suit. As a result of this discussion, it is seen that there is an error in observing that the civil court shall decide the title and possession on the basis of "independent" evidence. There is no need to observe about "independent" evidence. 5. In view of the above, the following portion in line nos. 16, 17 & 18 on page no.11 of the copy of judgment placed before me and the corresponding lines in the judgment shall be deleted : "totally uninfluenced by the impugned orders, 6 directing mutation entries as well as possession entries." and replace the following portion from line 10 to 16 on page of the original judgment : "I, therefore, order that the Civil Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations or any of the directions for correction of revenue entries in the revenue record as well as 7/12 extracts and shall decide the title and possession on the basis of "independent" evidence that would be adduced before it by the parties to the suit." by "I, therefore, order that the civil court shall decide the title and possession on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence that would be adduced before it by the parties to the suit and the record of mutation in revenue 7 records shall be subject to the result of civil suit." Delete the following from line nos. 19 to 24 in para 11 on page 12 & 13 of the original judgment : "and the Civil Court shall not be influenced by any of the entries including the entries, if any made, as a sequel to the direction issued by the Sub Divisional Officer under the impugned order or the entries remaining due to setting aside of all impugned orders." and put "full stop" after the word "land" in line no.19 on page 12 of the original judgment. 6. With the above corrections, this civil application is disposed of. JUDGE 8 /TA/