UNDER

ANNEXURE-A DATED 06.07.2017 IN O.S.No.3546/2013 ON THE

FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-13),

BENGALURU AND ALSO GRANT SUCH OTHER

FURTHER

RELIEFS.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The plaintiff in O.S.No.3546/2013 on the file of the V

Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred

to as 'Trial Court' for short) has filed this writ petition,

challenging the rejection of an application under Section

151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred

to as 'CPC' for short) to correct typographical errors in the

deposition of PW.1.

3

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as

they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3.

A

suit

for

injunction

was

filed

in

O.S.No.3546/2013. The suit was contested by the

defendants. Consequently, issues were framed and the

case was set down for the evidence of parties. The

plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and he was cross-

examined. It was found by PW.1 as well as his counsel

that there were clerical mistakes at page Nos.4 and 6 of

his cross-examination. At page No.4, the date of the

power of attorney was wrongly mentioned as "06.01.1990"

instead of "04.01.1990". At page No.6, instead of

recording the deposition of PW.1 as "it is not true to

suggest that the sale deed was created intentionally to

defeat the rights of the children of Vijaya Raju", it was

recorded as "it is true to suggest that the sale deed was

created intentionally to defeat the rights of the children of

Vijaya Raju". An application was filed by the plaintiff to

recall and reopen the evidence of PW.1 to clarify the

4

mistakes found as above. This application was contested

by the defendants, who claimed that there was no clerical

mistake or error but the plaintiff was attempting to nullify

the admission recorded in the course of cross-examination.

The Trial Court in terms of its order dated 06.07.2017,

rejected the application holding, "at this stage, the plaintiff

in order to fill up lacuna has filed the above application to

rectify the cross-examination as suggested by

the

defendant mentioned in his affidavit. The defendants'

counsel has taken the contention that after read over the

deposition, the witness has signed in the deposition copy.

Hence, plaintiff has not made out reasonable grounds to

allow the application. After recording the evidence, it

cannot be rectified in the eye of law."

4.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, this writ

petition is filed by the plaintiff.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff

submits that the power of attorney dated 04.01.1990 was

itself marked and therefore, mentioning the date of power

5

of attorney as 06.01.1990 was a patent mistake, which the

Trial Court rectified it later. However, in so far as the

suggestion

mentioned

above,

the

evidence

clearly

indicated that the suggestion put to PW.1 was wrongly

recorded by the Trial Court.

6.

The respondents/defendants though served

with the notice have not entered appearance.

7.

Once the deposition is recorded, if there are

inadvertent errors that could be perceived by the Trial

Court based on the other evidence available, it is always at

liberty to correct such inadvertent errors in the evidence or

ignore the same. The Court does not loose jurisdiction

merely because defendants did not accept that it was a

mistake.

8.

In that view of the matter, without disturbing

the impugned order, this writ petition is disposed off,

directing the Trial Court to apply itself to the evidence on

record and assess whether the suggestion put to PW.1 was

6

properly recorded or not. If it is not properly recorded, the

Trial Court is at liberty to ignore such mistake as

inadvertent.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PMR