1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION No. 47 of 2008
IN
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 74/2005
ARVIND SINGH MEWAR
V/S
SMT. YOGESHWARI KUMARI & ORS.
Mr. MS SINGHVI & Mr. ARUN BHANSALI, for the appellant /
petitioner
Mr. JP JOSHI, Mr. MIRNAL KANTI, Mr. S.MUKHERJEE & Mr.
PS CHUNDAWAT, for the respondent
Date of Order : 13th July, 2009
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.
ORDER
This application has been filed on behalf of
respondent no.1 in Civil Misc. Application No. 74/2005,
hereafter to be referred to as the applicant, impleading
the petitioner of Application No. 74/2005 as respondent
no.1, and four more respondents being respondents no. 2 to
5 in the said Application No. 74/2005. The present
application has been filed under Section 152 C.P.C. read
with Section 151 C.P.C. for correction of date in S.B.
Civil Misc. Application No. 74/2005 Smt. Yogeshwari Kumari
Vs. Arvind Singh Mewar & Ors., decided on 5.9.2007.
The averments of the application are, that civil
Misc. Application no. 74/2005 was filed under Section 301
and 302 of Indian Succession Act for removal of executor.
When the application came up before the Court on 17.8.2007
the matter was adjourned for two weeks, with a direction to
the parties to produce material on record in support of
2
their respective stand. The office fixed 3.9.2007 as the
date for listing the matter, but then it was not listed on
3.9.2007, and came up before the Court on 5.9.2007, on
which date, after hearing submission on behalf of the
parties, the Court dismissed the Application No. 74/2005.
It is then alleged in para-5, that it appears that due to
accidental slip, in the order passed by this Court on
5.9.2007, the date of order has been indicated as 3.9.2007
on page 1 of the order and at page 10 line 6 of the order,
which factually should have 5.9.2007. Then, in para-6 it is
pleaded that above accidental slip came to the knowledge of
the applicant when he was served with the notices of D.B.
Special Appeal Civil No. 19/2008 Smt. Yogeshwari Kumari Vs.
Arvind Singh Mewar, wherein the fact that the matter was
listed in court on 5.9.2007, and the order was allegedly
passed by the Court on 3.9.2007, has been made basis for
challenging the order dated 5.9.2007. Then, in para-7 it is
pleaded that Civil Misc. Application No. 74/2005 was listed
before, heard and decided by the Court on 5.9.2007, in the
presence of counsel for the parties, and that the matter
did not appear in the cause list dated 3.9.2007. Thus, it
was pleaded that it is apparent, that due to accidental
slip or omission, the date 3.9.2007 has been indicated in
the order instead of 5.9.2007, the same needs consideration
of this Court for correction. With this, it is prayed, that
the date be corrected at both the places to be 5.9.2007 in
place of 3.9.2007.
This petition came up in the Court on 4.9.2008; on
which date notices were ordered to be issued, returnable
within three weeks, and were give dasti. Then, on 6.11.2008
fresh notices were ordered to be issued, and one set of
notice was directed to be sent by registered post. Then, on
3
6.3.2009, when the matter came up, Mr. Singhvi informed
that to his information as gathered from the computer,
reply has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 on
11.12.2008. Therefore, the office was directed to locate it
and place it on record, and at the same time the Dy.
Registrar (Judicial) was also directed to enquire into the
matter, and submit a report on the factual aspect of the
matter, as to how the things, as alleged in the appeal, and
as alleged in the application have come about. The name of
the counsel who may be appearing on behalf of any of the
respondent and/or, who may have filed reply, should also be
shown in the cause list, and the matter was directed to be
listed after four weeks. Then, the matter came up on
4.5.2009 by which time the report of Dy. Registrar
(Judicial) was received, and Mr. Joshi prayed for time to
look into the report, therefore, the matter was adjourned
to 14.5.2009. This date 14.5.2009 was given because
otherwise I was sitting in Division Bench, and on 14.5.2009
other S.B. matters were also fixed to be listed before me.
Then, on 14.5.2009 Mr. Joshi submitted that he has applied
for certified copy of the report of Dy. Registrar (Judl.)
on 4th itself which he has received on 12th only, and
therefore, prayed for time to make submission on that
report. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 9.7.2009,
on which date, the matter was heard. On that day appearance
was put in on behalf of the applicant, and the present
respondent no. 1 and 4 only.
A reply to this petition had been sent by post by
Shri Vishvaraj Singh, the present non applicant no. 4,
which appears to have been received by the Registry on
25.9.2008. In parawise reply, regarding para-1 it was
denied being part of record, and referring to para-2 of the
4
preliminary objection, wherein referred Civil Writ Petition
No. 74/2005. Then, paras no. 2 to 5 have been replied as
answering respondent is not aware of the contents. However,
regarding para-5 it is pleaded that the matter be
investigated, as the accidental slip had not occurred just
once but twice. Then, para-6 has been denied, and it is
pleaded, that it is misleading to state that the matter of
incorrect dates is the basis of the appeal. Regarding para-
7 it was pleaded, that the answering respondent is not
aware.
Then, a reply has been filed on behalf of the
present respondent no.1 Smt. Yogeshwari Kumari on
10.12.2008, pleading interalia, that the non applicant
denies each and every allegation, averment, contention
and/or submission made in the present application which is
contrary to, and/or inconsistent with what is stated herein
below, and in the D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 19/2007, as
well as in the records of the case, and unless specifically
admitted. Then, as preliminary objection, the submissions
have been made. In para-1 it is pleaded that the non-
applicant has already challenged the judgment dt. 3.9.2007
by preferring appeal, in which appeal the main ground is,
that the order passed by the learned Judge is liable to be
set aside mainly on the ground, that on 3.9.2007 the matter
was not listed before the learned Single Judge and,
therefore, there was no occasion for him to have decided
the application filed by the appellant under Sections 301
and 302. The judgment is said to have been pronounced on
3.9.2007, when the matter was not listed before the learned
Single Judge. Therefore, the question of the order coming
into existence on 3.9.2007, does not arise. The order
passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set
5
aside, for this reason alone. Then, in para-2 it is pleaded
that the application is misconceived and misleading, and
that the applicant is guilty of stating incorrect facts,
stating half truths, stating facts out of context. Instead
of filing an objection in the said appeal, the applicant
has filed present misconceived application. It is pleaded
that it is not just believable, that the alleged accidental
slip came to the knowledge of the applicant only when he
was served with the notice of the said appeal filed by the
non applicant no.1, wherein the judgment/order impugned in
the said appeal having been passed on a date when the
matter was not listed, has been taken as a ground for
challenging the judgment. It is pleaded, that the alleged
accidental slip ought to have, and must have, come to the
knowledge of the applicant immediately upon getting a copy
of the said judgment/order dt. 3.9.2007 or the certified
copy thereof, rather the application is only a ploy to
extend the period of limitation for filing the said
application. Then, in para-3 it is pleaded that an
application for review has been filed in the garb of the
said application for correction of date, and has been filed
for the sole purpose of having a hearing on review
petition, which is not permissible under the rules of High
Court, particularly when the judgment/order has already
been challenged, and is pending before the Division Bench
of this Court. Then, in para-4 it is pleaded that the
discrepancy and/or the error in the said judgment/order dt.
3.9.2007, which is being sought to be corrected by filing
the said application, is not in the nature of typographical
error, and as such, if at all such correction can be made,
it could have been done only upon the filing of an
application for review, limitation where for has already
expired. As such, the applicant cannot now be permitted to
6
do the same indirectly, what he failed to do directly by
not filing an application for review. It is also pleaded
that after passing of the judgment/order dt. 3.9.2007 this
Court becomes functus officio for anything other than an
application for review, as it would tantamount to intrusion
into the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court, before which
the said appeal has been filed. With raising these
preliminary objections parawise reply has also been
incorporated. In parawise reply paras 1 to 3 were pleaded
to relating to matter of record requiring no reply.
Regarding para-4 it was pleaded, that so far as it relates
to matter of record, it needs no reply. However, it was
denied that the non applicant no. 1 on 5.9.2007 was heard
at all. It was specifically purportedly pleaded, that as
mentioned in the appeal, that on 5.9.2007 Shri Vivek Patwa,
Advocate appeared on behalf of counsel for the non
applicant no.1 Mr. J.P. Joshi, and made a request, that the
matter be adjourned, whereupon the Hon’ble Court made some
query and informed the advocate appearing on behalf of Mr.
Joshi, that the order will be passed in the case later on.
As such it is misleading and incorrect to allege, that the
non applicant no. 1 was heard on the said date. Contents of
para-5 were denied, pleading it to be contrary to record of
the case. Para-6 was denied. It was reiterated what has
been said in the preliminary objection no. 2, to the effect
that it is just not believable that the alleged accidental
slip came to the knowledge of the applicant only when he
was served with the notice of the appeal, wherein order
having been passed on the date when the matter was not
listed has been taken as a ground for challenging the same.
It was also maintained that the alleged accidental slip
ought to have and must have come to the knowledge of the
applicant immediately upon getting a copy of the said
7
judgment. As such it was contended that the averments in no
circumstances can be accepted as reasonable, cogent,
plausible, and the same is an after thought, and only a
ploy to extend the period of limitation for filing the said
application. Then, para-7 was denied. It was maintained
that the non applicant no. 1 was heard by the Court on
5.9.2007 in the presence of counsel for the parties, as
alleged. Then, para-8 was also denied. It was denied that
it is an accidental slip or omission, and it was pleaded
that since the order dt. 3.9.2007 has already been appealed
against and the said appeal is pending, the correction
sought would tantamount to intrusion into the jurisdiction
of the Appellate Court.
Affidavit in support of this reply has been filed
pleading “the statements of facts in the accompanying reply
are true to my knowledge and/or are true to the records of
the case. Rest of the statements in the accompanying reply
are in the nature of submissions to this Hon’ble Court”.
The Dy. Registrar (Judicial) in his report has
reported, that the matter was listed before the Court on
17.8.2007, and on that date, the matter was adjourned for
two weeks, with a direction to the parties to produce
material on record in support of their respective stand.
Thereafter, the office fixed the next date as 3.9.2007, for
listing the matter in the Court for passing order. A
perusal of cause list dated 3.9.2007 reveals that the
matter was not listed before the Court on 3.9.2007, and it
was listed on 5.9.2007, at S.No. 3 in the cause list. It is
also reported, that it is evident from the record of the
result of the cause list, that the matter was dismissed on
5.9.2007. Then, he has perused the stenographer’s diary
8
maintained by private secretary, which revealed, that the
order was not dictated on 3.9.2007, and the computer print
of the file history from the properties in the computer was
taken, which showed that it was created in the computer by
the concerned stenographer on 11.9.2007, and was modified
on 12.9.2007. He has produced the necessary material on the
basis of which he submitted the report.
To this report objections have been filed on behalf
of the present non applicant no. 1. First preliminary
objection raised is, that the non applicant questions the
opinion given by the Deputy Registrar on 1.5.2009, and also
disputes the contents thereof. It is pleaded that the
report is contrary to and/or inconsistent with the records
of the case, inasmuch as, the main issue of dispute has not
been addressed at all. It is pleaded that the contents of
the report are contrary to and/or inconsistent with not
only the records of the case but also to the statements of
the non applicant no.1, which has not been denied anywhere,
that in fact no hearing took place on the date which was
scheduled to be fixed, either on 3rd or on 5th of September,
2007. It was reiterated that the judgment/order has already
been challenged by way of appeal by raising the grounds
mentioned above. The second preliminary objection raised is
that the Dy. Registrar’s report is tailored not only to
support and second the applicant’s contention, as would
appear from the application, rather the Dy. Registrar has
traveled beyond the ambit and scope of report sought by the
Court, by giving a conclusive opinion, which includes
persuasive elements and recommendations motivating
conclusions indicating possible future actions that this
Court may take. The report is also contended to have gone
beyond its purpose of reporting to/informing this Court
9
with regard to the specific query. Third objection raised
is that on 5.9.2007 the non applicant no. 1 was not heard
by this Court, inasmuch as Mr. Vivek Patwa learned Advocate
appeared and sought an adjournment/accommodation on behalf
of Mr. J.P. Joshi, who was to appear and argue the case on
behalf of the non applicant, whereupon this Court made some
query and observed that some order would be passed later
on. As such the contention of the applicant about the
matter being heard on 5.9.2009 is incorrect, and is not
borne out from the records/proceedings of the case. The
order impugned in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 19/2007
pending before the Division Bench is erroneous in the fact
and circumstances of the case, to the effect that since no
hearing took place on 5.9.2009, this Court in no
circumstance could have recorded the submissions of either
of the parties, as has been recorded at page 10 of the said
order, sought to be corrected. Then, parawise comments have
also been made, and therein para-1 has been contended to be
requiring no comment. Then, regarding para-2 it was pleaded
to be requiring no comment. However, it was specifically
denied, that the case was dismissed on 5.9.2007 which is
contrary to record. Then, para-3 was also pleaded to be
requiring no comment. Then, regarding para-4 it was pleaded
that the report relates to matters of record, and as such
need no comment. However, contents of para-4 of the report,
in any case would remain same whether the matter was
decided on 3.9.2009 and/or 5.9.2009. Then, regarding para-5
of the report it was reiterated that what has been stated
herein above in the preliminary objections to the effect
that Deputy Registrar’s report is tailored not only to
support and second the applicant’s contention as would
appear from the application for correction of the date, but
has also traveled beyond the ambit and scope of a report
10
sought by this Court by giving a conclusive opinion which
includes persuasive elements and recommendations,
motivating conclusions indicating possible future actions
that this Court may take. Interalia with this it is pleaded
that the report deserves to be rejected by this Court, and
the present petition requires to be dismissed.
These objections are also supported by the affidavit
of non applicant no.1 verifying the facts, to the effect
that “the statements of facts in the accompanying objection
petition are true to my knowledge and/or are true to the
records of the case. Rest of the statements in the
accompanying objection petition are in the nature of
submissions to this Hon’ble Court”.
Arguing the application, it was contended by the
learned counsel for the applicant, that at page-1 and in
line 6 of page-10 the date “3.9.2007” has come to be
mentioned only as accidental slip, or omission while it
should have been “5.9.2007” as neither the case was listed
on 3.9.2007, nor was it heard, and was actually heard on
5.9.2007. It was contended that the question as to whether
the matter was heard or not in the matter sought to be
contended by the non applicant is a question which is
already subject matter of appeal, and need not be gone into
in this application. Then, it was submitted that an over
all reading of the pleading, even comprised in the reply,
there is no dispute, that the order has been passed on
5.9.2007, and simply because by accidental slip the date
has been mentioned as 3.9.2007, on which date even
according to the non applicants neither the matter was
listed, nor was heard, the order could possibly not be
passed on 3.9.2007. Then, it was submitted, that it is not
11
a case of review, rather it being only an accidental slip,
or omission, which is required to be brought to the notice
of this Court only, and for that purpose relied upon four
judgments, being Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral
Development Corporation reported in (1990) 1 SCC-361 (Para-
5), Central Bank of India Vs. Brajlal Kapurchand Gandhi
reported in AIR 2003 SC-3028 (Para-11 & 12), R.S.E.B. Vs.
Narmda Industries reported in 1992(3) WLC (Raj.)-458 (Para-
17), and Ram Kanwar Vs. Kewal Singh reported in 2006(1) WLC
(SC)-92 (Para-2). It was then submitted, that as a matter
of fact on 5.9.2007 Mr. Vivek Patwa, appeared on behalf of
Mr. Joshi, he argued the matter for about half an hour, and
after hearing both the sides, Court pronounced the order of
dismissal, and observed, that the order will be dictated in
the chambers, and it is precisely for this reason, that now
Mr. Vivek Patwa is not coming before this Court, nor has he
dared to file affidavit in support of the plea taken in the
reply, lest that might have amounted to contempt of Court
on his part. Then, commenting on affidavits of non
applicant no. 1, it is contended that those affidavits are
no affidavits in the eye of law, as she was neither present
in the Court, nor had she deposed the facts/information
received from Mr. Vivek Patwa, as such, the facts could
possibly be not true to her personal knowledge. As such the
affidavits are no affidavits in the eye of law, and are
simply required to be discarded.
Mr. Joshi, on the other hand submitted, that it is
only an attempt to overreach appellate forum. It was then
contended that the applicant has not given details of dates
of his filing application for certified copy of the order,
or about his having received the copy of the order. Then,
referring to para-2 of the affidavit, it was contended that
12
the verification is proper. It was maintained that the
applicant can always make submissions, that are being made
before this Court, before the appellate forum. It was also
submitted that since the matter is already pending before
the Division Bench, proceeding with this application
amounts to contempt of Court, and for this purpose reliance
was placed on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.
Haleem Vs. M.S. Tajudeen reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC-644.
Since the argument was not clear, it was pointed
out to Mr. Joshi, that he should clarify as to what he
means in this submission, i.e. whether it would be
amounting to contempt on the part of the applicant, or on
the part of the Court, and after hesitating a lot, he
submitted, that contempt will be committed by this Court. I
then straightway advised him to initiate appropriate
proceeding for contempt, to which he submitted, he does not
propose to initiate any such contempt.
Then, regarding Dy. Registrar’s report it was
submitted, that there is no basis for this report, it is
beyond the point referred, rather it is not a report on the
point referred.
I have considered the submissions, and have gone
through the papers, and the judgments.
At the outset, so far A. Haleem’s case is
concerned, the matter, that was pending before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, related to selection of trustees to
Madrasathul Salalhi Fir Adrabail Kilhai, a trust, which
trust was founded in the year 1980, and after the death of
the founders, dispute arose, and a scheme was framed by the
13
Court, and the administration of trust was carried on in
accordance with the Scheme Decree modified from time to
time. For the administration of the trust six hereditary
trustees were required to be selected from three main
branches of the founders, two from each branch, besides non
hereditary trustees to be selected by the District Judge,
and in all there were to be nine trustees. The correctness
of the selection ultimately reached the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, and by the order dt. 18.9.1991 it was directed, that
the then trustees could continue upto 31.5.1992. Thereafter
a new set of trustees was to be appointed by proper
advertisement in the newspapers inviting applications, and
if any objection was made to any one of the trustees, the
High Court was directed to look into the same. Pursuant to
that order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the learned
District Judge called the application, and by his order dt.
25.9.1992 he selected respondents no. 1 to 9. A revision
was preferred challenging that selection, which was
dismissed by the High Court. Challenging that, special
leave petition was filed. Therein, on 16.8.1993, order was
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, noticing that vide
order dt. 15.4.1993 the Hon’ble Supreme Court reconstituted
the Board of Trustees pending disposal of the special leave
petition, nominating certain persons, and keeping certain
persons out, meaning thereby that the entire constitution
of Board was seized of, and pending decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, and no other court had jurisdiction or
business to interfere with the cause of the matter pending
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inspite of that clear
position respondent no. 5 moved application before the
learned District Judge, which was entertained for removal
of one of the trustees nominated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, and the District Judge did not reflect any thought
14
on the propriety of entertaining the application, and of
issuing notice on the application. In such circumstances,
it was noticed, that the conduct of respondent no. 5 in
moving the application amounts to an attempt to directly
interfering with the proceeding by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, besides being wholly improper. It was observed that
this kind of litigation to fire the proceedings of this
Court, and embarrass the Chairman nominated by this Court,
should be put down, and notices were issued, as to why he
should not be punished for contempt. With this explanation
was called from the District Judge also, and it was
observed, that whether any further action should be
initiated against the District Judge would be considered
after consideration of his explanation. The explanation was
received. Then, the matter came up, and it was observed,
that the District Judge has been callous in entertaining
the application, in spite of the knowledge, that this Court
was seized of the matter, and secondly there is remiss on
his part in directing notice in a cavalier fashion, even
without looking at the array of the parties, or going
through the contents of the application. However, apology
tendered by the learned District Judge was accepted, as the
application had been dismissed by the learned District
Judge on 17.8.1993, and the proceedings were dropped. In my
view, this case, apart from fact, that it has no bearing on
the controversy involved in the present case, rather has
been cited, as an attempt on the part of the learned
counsel for the non applicant Mr. J.P. Joshi to brow beat
this Court, more so when he dared to submit that it amounts
to contempt on my part. Admittedly there is no order
whatever by the Division Bench, contrary to which any
application might have been filed, much less entertained.
15
In the totality of circumstances, I stand advised
to keep restrain on myself, and resist from taking any
stern action against Mr. Joshi, for making this type of
submissions.
Coming to the merits of the application, all said
and done, even invoking my personal memory, the order was
not dictated on 3.9.2007. As the material has come on
record, even in the present pleading of the parties, that
the matter was listed on 5.9.2007 the matter was called,
and according to Mr. Singhvi the matter was heard, and on
behalf of Mr. Joshi Mr. Vivek Patwa made submissions, and
after hearing both the sides, Court pronounced the order of
dismissal, and observed, that the order will be dictated in
the chambers, while according to Mr. Joshi, some query was
put by the Court to Mr. Patwa, and then he was informed
that the order will be passed in the case later on (as
pleaded while replying para-4 of the application). Thus,
admittedly the matter was listed on 5.9.2007, and was heard
on 5.9.2007. May be that Mr. Joshi did not appear on
5.9.2007, and instead Mr. Patwa appeared, who has not dared
to come forward to file any affidavit, which could be
affidavit on his personal knowledge, as to what transpired
in the Court on 5.9.2007, as to what was detail of the
query put in the Court, and in what background the query
was put, and what was the answer of the query put by the
Court, and what remained to be done in the matter after the
Court receiving reply of that query from Mr. Patwa, and
then what was pronounced by the court. May be, that the non
applicant no. 1 may be feeling, that sufficient opportunity
of hearing was not given, on the parameters, as assumed by
him, but then, opposing this application is not forum for
ventilating that grievance.
16
I may also observe at this stage, that I get from
my personal notes as I maintain, that as a matter of fact,
the judgment in this case was dictated by me to my private
secretary on 9.9.2007, at my residence, in the morning
hours, which was transcribed by him, and after making
necessary corrections of typographical mistakes in the
print, a fresh print was taken out, and that was signed. Of
course, I could not notice, that the date in the judgment
at the two places, being at page no. 1 and at page no. 10
in the 6th line, has been incorrectly mentioned to be 3rd
September, 2007, while it should have been 5th September,
2007. Obviously, when admittedly on 3rd September, 2007 the
matter was not listed nor was heard, it could not be as
appeared at page no. 10 of the order, that on 3rd September,
2007 the counsel for the respondent invited my attention to
Annexure R 1/9, and made submissions, as contained in that
para. This all actually happened on 5.9.2007, and this was
the query put, and this was the answer given, this was the
conclusion as I could arrive at, and after receiving the
answer from Mr. Patwa I had pronounced the dismissal of the
application, and gave out that the detailed order would be
dictated in chambers, which ofcourse could be dictated on
9th September 2007 only. Correctness of my conclusions is of
course subject matter of decision by Division Bench,
therefore, regarding correctness of conclusions I am not
supposed to make any observation.
So far present application being the correct forum
is concerned, the judgments cited by the learned counsel
for the applicant are complete answer to the objection, and
in view of these judgments, in my view, the present
application, is the only appropriate forum. The error
17
pointed out is only an accidental slip, or error, plain and
simple, having no bearing on the merits of the matter, and
is clearly correctable in an application under Section 152
C.P.C. May be that a review also could be filed for this
purpose, but then, it cannot be said, that Section 152
C.P.C. is not appropriate forum, permissible to be invoked.
I do not hesitate in admitting, that one should have
been more cautious in reading every letter and word of the
judgment, in which event this error would not have
occurred. To commit error is human, and the non applicant
is simply trying to make mountain out of a mole, which too
does not exist. I may simply refer to page 3 and 4 of the
objections to the report of Dy. Registrar (Judicial),
submitted by the non applicant no. 1, and notice, that at
page 3 in para-3, in the 9th line, it is mentioned, that
hearing of the Civil Misc. Application no. 74/2005 took
place on 5.9.2009 is incorrect. Obviously we are only in
July, 2009, and September, 2009 is yet to come. Likewise,
in this very para in the 14th line again the date has been
mentioned as 5.9.2009. Not only this on page no. 4 in para
3.4 again, the dates have been mentioned as 3.9.2009 so
also 5.9.2009, by submitting that the question would remain
same, whether the matter was decided on 3.9.2009 and/or
5.9.2009. Obviously, the case was neither decided on
3.9.2009, nor 5.9.2009. This I am mentioning only for the
purpose of showing, that there may be human error in
mentioning dates or figure. In the judgment it has occurred
at two places, while in these objections it has occurred at
four places. Be that as it may.
The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that
the application requires to be allowed, and is accordingly
18
allowed. The date appearing at page-1, and in 6th line at
page-10, as “3.9.2007” is corrected to be read as
“5.9.2007”.
( N P GUPTA ),J.
/Sushil/
