Courts may correct inadvertent typographical errors in a judgment’s recorded relief through review.

The petitioner filed a review petition seeking correction/modification of the order dated 1 July 2026 passed by the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 3274 of 2026.

The petitioner contended that the relief clause recorded in paragraph 1 of the earlier order contained an inadvertent typographical error and did not accurately reflect the reliefs originally sought.

He therefore requested that the relief clause be suitably modified.

The State did not oppose the requested modification.

Whether the order dated 1 July 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 3274 of 2026 should be reviewed and modified to correct an alleged typographical error in the relief clause?

Whether the relief clause should be replaced with the reliefs stated in paragraphs 10.1 to 10.4 of the petitioner’s pleadings?

The Court applied the principle that a court may review or correct its order where an inadvertent typographical or clerical error causes the order to inaccurately record the relief sought.

The correction is limited to the erroneous portion and does not amount to reconsideration of the merits of the original writ petition.

The Court also considered the absence of objection from the respondents while determining whether the requested modification should be granted.

The Court accepted the petitioner’s submission that the relief clause in the earlier order had been incorrectly typed due to an inadvertent typographical error.

Since the respondents raised no objection to the proposed correction, the Court found it appropriate to modify the earlier order only to the extent necessary to accurately record the petitioner’s claimed reliefs.

The substituted reliefs concerned access to and movement through a pathway to the petitioner’s land, consideration of his pending representation, production of relevant records, and consequential reliefs.

The Court did not reopen or adjudicate the substantive merits of the underlying writ petition.

The order dated 1 July 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 3274 of 2026 was modified so that paragraph 1 would reflect the reliefs set out in paragraphs 10.1 to 10.4, including calling for the records, permitting the petitioner to access his land through the pathway, directing consideration of his pending representation, and granting any other appropriate relief.

The Court directed that the review order be read together with the original order.