Back
2013 Supreme(Ker) 367
High Court of Kerala
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
Annamma Chandapillai
Versus
K.X. Anil
RFA. Nos. 42 of 2010 & 881 of 2011
Decided On : 15-07-2013
For the Appellant:M/s. G. Sreekumar (Chelur), Preethy Karunakaran, Ravi K. Pariyarath, K.K. Unni Advocates.
For the Respondent:R1, R. Azad Babu, Advocate.
Courts have the authority to correct typographical errors in their judgments.
Headnote:
Typographical Errors - Correction of Errors in Judgment
Fact of the Case:
The court noticed typographical errors in its previous judgment and took suo motu action to correct them.
Finding of the Court:
The court ordered the correction of two typographical errors in its previous judgment.
Issues: Typographical errors in the previous judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court has the authority to correct typographical errors in its judgments.
Final Decision: The court ordered the correction of the typographical errors and directed that the order form part of the previous judgment.
Ramakrishna Pillai, J.
1. Taken up today, suo motu, as certain typographical errors were noticed in our judgment dated 24.6.2013, reported in 2013 (3) KLT 218.
2. The last sentence of paragraph (22), as it stands now, is as under:-
“Here, we would hasten to add that the respondent had a case that he was ready to execute the sale deed in the name of the appellant son only.”
3. It is factually incorrect. What we intended was that the respondent had no case that he was ready to execute the sale deed in the name of the appellant’s son only. Therefore, we order that the last sentence of paragraph (22) shall stand corrected as under:-
“Here, we would hasten to add that the respondent had no case that he was ready to execute the sale deed in the name of the appellant’s son only.”
4. Yet another mistake we notice is in the last sentence of paragraph (24) of the judgment. There, the word “disallowing” has to be corrected and read as “disowning”. We, therefore, order that the last sentence in paragraph
(24) of the judgment shall stand modified as under:
“It appears that the purport of the section is that the agent cannot take undue advantage under a contract by disowning the agency.”
5. This order shall form part of our judgment dated 24.6.2013.
Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel appearing for both sides. Inform the reporters also.
