Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tushar L Sheth
For the Respondents: HCLS Committee, Nikhilesh J Shah

Courts possess the inherent power to rectify clerical, typographical, or arithmetical errors in their judgments to ensure procedural accuracy and that the records correctly reflect the intended application of the law, thereby ensuring the record speaks the truth.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rule 10(2) - Correction of clerical and typographical errors - Power of Court to rectify judgments - Where a judgment contains a clerical omission regarding the proper citation of a procedural rule, the court has the inherent authority to correct the error to ensure that the records accurately reflect the legal provisions relied upon. (Para 2)

Facts of the case:
An office note was placed before the court highlighting a typographical omission in the judgment dated 17/02/2026. The original judgment cited the provision relating to the striking out or adding of parties but failed to explicitly include the specific reference to 'Rule 10(2)' in the heading of the order.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the omission in the judgment text required rectification to clearly state the mandate of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers the court to add or strike out parties to a suit. The correction was deemed necessary to maintain accuracy in judicial records. (Para 2)

Issues: The main issue was whether the court could exercise its power to rectify a typographical omission in a previously delivered judgment regarding a procedural statutory reference.

Ratio Decidendi: The court holds inherent power to correct inadvertent clerical mistakes or typographical errors in its orders to ensure that the judgment effectively and correctly reflects the intended legal basis for the court's decision, thereby upholding the integrity of the judicial record.

Result: Office note disposed of and judgment stands modified.

Table of Content
1. correction of clerical errors in judicial orders (Para 1 , 2)
2. final disposal of speaking to minutes application (Para 3 , 4)

1. Perused the Office-note dated 06.03.2026.

2. It appears from the Office Note that in the captioned petition, in the judgment dated 17.02.2026, at page No. 10, paragraph No. 9, the following:

“ORDER I

Parties to the Suits

10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.—

(1) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

(2) Court may strike out or add parties.—

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings,

either upon or without the application of either

party, and on such terms as may appear to the

Court to be just, order that the name of any party

improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant,

be struck out, and that the name of any person who

ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or

defendant, or whose presence before the Court

may be necessary in order to enable the Court

effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and

settle all the questions involved in the suit, be

added.”

shall be read as: