Bombay High CourtMCA/720/2015disposed of

Smt.Chandrawati Punu Gaonkar And 7 ORS., v. Shri. Nilu Manju Velip And 7 ORS.,

2015-12-11F. M. Reis2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 720 OF 2015 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2007 SMT.CHANDRAWATI PUNU GAONKAR AND 7 ORS., ... Applicants

Versus

SHRI. NILU MANJU VELIP AND 7 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S.S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. C.A. Coutinho, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 6. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J.

Date:- 11th December, 2015 P.C.:

Heard Mr. S.S. Kakodkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants and Mr. C.A. Coutinho, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an application for speaking to the minutes of the judgment and order dated 21/08/2015. Mr. Kakodkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that though only the defendants no.1,2 & 5 in the suit, who are shown as respondents no.1,2 and deceased husband of respondent no.3, had opposed the reliefs sought by the applicants, nevertheless, in the said judgment, the impression is that all the respondents in the above appeal had opposed the claim of the appellants.

3. Mr. C.A. Coutinho, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that he was representing only the original defendants no.1,2

MCA/720/2015 & 5, who are now shown as respondents no.1,2 and the original defendant no.5 is being represented by his legal representatives, who are respondents no.3 to 6. The learned counsel further submits that he was not representing respondents no.7 & 8, who were the defendants no.3 & 4 in the suit.

4. Having heard the learned Counsel and with consent of both the Counsel, it is clarified that the reference to the respondents in the judgment would be read as respondents no.1 to 6, who were the original defendants no.1,2 & 5 in the suit, and the reference to respondents no.1,2 & 5 be read as defendants no.1,2 & 5 and reference to respondents no.3 & 4 be read as defendants no.3 & 4.

5. It is also pointed out that there was a typographical error in para 3 at line 12. Hence, the words "grandfather of respondent no.3" by consent is to be substituted by the words "father of defendant no.3" and the word "Zorgo" is to be replaced by the words "defendants no.1 & 5" in para 3 in line 9.

6. Registry to make the corrections accordingly. With the aforesaid clarification the application stands disposed of. F. M. REIS, J.