Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Pat) 1188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Batoran Mahto @ Batoran Rai and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar - Opposite Party
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 25164 of 2021 Arising out of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 31852 of 2020
Decided On : 18-08-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Rina Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP

Courts may permit corrections for typographical errors in legal documents if the error is found to be inadvertent.

Headnote:
Correction - Typographical Error - The court permitted the correction of the name of the father of the petitioners in the main petition and Vakalatnama due to an inadvertent typographical error.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought modification of a judgment and order to correct the name of the father of two petitioners, which had been erroneously interchanged.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the error was due to inadvertent typographical error and permitted the correction to be made in the main petition and Vakalatnama, as well as in the judgment and order.
Issues: Correction of typographical error in the name of the father of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed the correction based on the finding that the error was due to inadvertent typographical error.
Final Decision: The petition stands disposed of with the permitted correction in the name of the father of the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Ms. Rina Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State.

3. The present application has been filed seeking modification of the judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31852 of 2020.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the petition of Cr. Misc. No. 31852 of 2020, the name of the father of the petitioner no. 2 and that of petitioner no. 3 have been erroneously interchanged. It was submitted that the name of father of petitioner no. 2 Shiv Rai is Late Musafir Rai which has been shown to be the name of the father of petitioner no. 3, Bhagwan Mahto and the name of father of petitioner no. 3, Bhagwan Mahto is Ram Das Mahto who has been shown to be father of petitioner no. 2, Shiv Rai. Learned counsel submitted that she may be permitted to correct the name of father of petitioners no. 2 and 3 in the main petition of Cr. Misc. No. 31852 of 2020 as also in the Vakalatnama and the Court may then allow such correction to be made in the cause title of the judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31852 of 2020.

5. Learned APP does not object.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that such error is due to inadvertent typographical error.

7. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make correction in the name of the father of the petitioners no. 2 and 3 in the main petition of Cr. Misc. No. 31852 of 2020 and the Vakalatnama; and as a consequence, the said correction in the name of the father of petitioners no. 2 and 3 be also incorporated in judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31852 of 2020.

8. The rest of the aforesaid judgment and order shall remain unchanged.

9. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document