Rectification for apparent error allowed for omitted counsel name, but refused where source record did not support adding "million".

Rectification was permitted only for a clerical omission in the title portion of the final order, because the omitted counsel's name was an admitted error apparent on the face of the record and its insertion merely completed the record without affecting the merits. By contrast, no correction was allowed to add the word "million" after "US $ 33,621", because the underlying source document relied on in the order did not contain that term, so there was no apparent mistake in the record to rectify. The application therefore succeeded only to the limited extent of amending the title portion and was rejected on the remaining point.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the omission of the name of counsel from the title portion of the final order constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification; (ii) Whether the absence of the word "million" after the figure "US $ 33,621" in the order was an apparent error liable to be corrected.

Issue (i): Whether the omission of the name of counsel from the title portion of the final order constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification.

Analysis: The omission was admitted and was treated as a clerical/apparent mistake in the title portion of the order. The correction did not involve any reappraisal of the merits but only completion of the record so that the appearing advocate was correctly reflected.

Conclusion: The omission was rectifiable, and the title portion was directed to be amended by adding the omitted advocate's name.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of the word "million" after the figure "US $ 33,621" in the order was an apparent error liable to be corrected.

Analysis: The figure was taken from a document produced by the appellants, and on verification that document itself did not contain the word "million". The omission therefore was not attributable to any apparent mistake in the order.

Conclusion: No rectification was granted in respect of insertion of the word "million".

Final Conclusion: The rectification application succeeded only to the limited extent of correction of the title portion and was otherwise rejected, leaving the original order undisturbed on the remaining point.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is available only for an error apparent on the face of the record, not for inserting a term that does not appear in the source material relied upon in the order.

---