Pradip Kumar Ganeriwala Vs Rohan Ganeriwala and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pradip Kumar Ganeriwala Vs Rohan Ganeriwala and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Correction application partly allowed: the seven innocuous corrections (items i-vii) deemed incorporated in the judgment dated May 1, 2025; corrections to paragraph nos. 46 and 56 refused; parties at liberty to take out an appropriate application for review for other errors apparent on the face of the record.

Issue for consideration

Whether the corrections sought by respondent no.1 (and similarly by respondent no.18) to paragraph nos. 46 and 56 of the judgment dated May 1, 2025 — substituting defendant no.2 for defendant nos.1 to 5 as the maker of the recorded submissions — should be carried out. +1 more

Court's answer

Corrections to paragraph nos. 46 and 56 refused: the Court found there might be substance in the appellant's contention that they relate to the merits of the case; even if there was an error to that effect, it cannot be corrected on mere verbal mentioning; and since the Bench does not exactly recollect what transpired, the recorded submission by defendant nos.1 to 5 reflects what took place in court on the said date. The similar correction sought by respondent no.18 in paragraph no.46 is dealt with likewise.

Ratio / Principle

The other corrections sought are innocuous in nature and are deemed incorporated in the judgment dated May 1, 2025, comprising seven items: 'Bishwanath' for 'Biwanath' (para 3); year '2023' for '2003' and 'respondent no.1' for 'petitioners' (para 8); year of Title Suit no. 423 as '2023' (para 9); 'plaintiff' for 'primary defendant' and singular 'plaintiff' (para 19); 'plaintiff/respondent no.1' for 'plaintiff/appellant' (para 58); 'respondent no.1' for 'appellant' (para 62); and 'Civil Judge' for 'Senior Judge' (para 69).

Key takeaways

Liberty reserved: nothing in the order precludes the parties from taking out an appropriate application for review if they are of the opinion that other errors apparent on the face of the record remain in the judgment dated May 1, 2025.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Correction of judgment — Verbal mentioning — Division Bench (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, JJ.) partly allowed corrections sought to its judgment dated May 1, 2025 in F.M.A.T 42 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025. Corrections to paragraph nos. 46 and 56 — whereby respondent no.1 sought to substitute defendant no.2 for defendant nos.1 to 5 as the maker of submissions recorded in the judgment (respondent no.18 seeking a similar correction to paragraph no.46) — were refused: they appear to relate to the merits of the case, such an error cannot be corrected on mere verbal mentioning, and the Bench, not recollecting what transpired, held the recorded version reflects what took place in court. Seven innocuous corrections were deemed incorporated (name 'Bishwanath' for 'Biwanath'; year '2023' for '2003' including as to Title Suit no. 423; party-designation corrections in paragraph nos. 8, 19, 58 and 62; 'Civil Judge' for 'Senior Judge'). Liberty reserved to the parties to take out an appropriate application for review in respect of other errors apparent on the face of the record.

3^rd July, 2025 (AK) 01

F.M.A.T 42 of 2025

Pradip Kumar Ganeriwala Vs. Rohan Ganeriwala and others

Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jain Mr. Kunal Shaw Ms. Yamini Mahawar ...for the appellant.

Mr. Abir Lal Ghosh Mr. Shameek Ray Mr. Aneequa Ahmed ...for the respondent no.1. Mr. Balaji Chakraborty ...for the respondent no.5. Mr. Rachit Lakhmani

...for the respondent no.18.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that certain errors crept in the judgment dated May 1, 2025 passed in FMAT 42 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in principle, he does not have any objection to the other corrections than the corrections intended to paragraph nos.46 and 56 of the said judgment.

Upon a perusal of the corrections in paragraph nos.46 and 56 which are sought by the respondent no.1 now, we find that there might be some

2

substance in the contention of the appellant that those relate to the merits of the case.

Even if there was an error in the order to that effect, the same cannot be corrected on mere verbal mentioning.

Inasmuch as the submission recorded in the said paragraphs to have been made by defendant nos.1 to 5, which now is sought to be argued to have been made by defendant no.2 only, since the judgment was passed some time back, we do not exactly recollect what transpired in court and as such, we do not intend to carry out such corrections, since it apparently reflects the happenings which took place in court on the said date.

It may be recorded here that learned counsel for the respondent no.18 also seeks a similar correction as respondent no.1 in paragraph no.46, which has been dealt with above.

However, regarding the other corrections sought, we find that those are innocuous in nature and may be effected.

Accordingly, the following corrections may be deemed to stand incorporated in the judgment dated May 1, 2025:

i) In paragraph no.3 of the judgment, the name

of “Bishwanath” was erroneously printed as

“Biwanath”.

3

ii) In paragraph no.8, in the second line, the year “2023” was erroneously printed as “2003”. In the fifth line of the said paragraph, instead of “petitioners”, it should be read as “respondent no.1”.

iii) In paragraph no.9 of the judgment, within parenthesis, the year of Title Suit no. 423 should be read as “2023” instead of “2003”.

iv) In paragraph no.19, in the first line, instead of “primary defendant”, it should be read as “plaintiff”. In the third line from the bottom of the self-same paragraph, the word “plaintiffs” in plural should be replaced by the singular “plaintiff”.

v) In paragraph no.58, in the last line, the expression “plaintiff/appellant” shall be read as “plaintiff/respondent no.1”.

vi) In the first line of paragraph no.62, the word “appellant” shall be read as “respondent no.1”.

vii) In paragraph no.69, the expression “Senior Judge” should be read as “Civil Judge”.

Let the above corrections be deemed to stand incorporated in the judgment dated May 1, 2025.

Nothing in this order shall preclude the parties from taking out an appropriate application for review in the event the parties are of the opinion

4

that certain other errors apparent on the face of the record remain in the order.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Uday Kumar, J.)