Back
2020 Supreme(Jhk) 1172
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Hare Mohan Pradhan - Appellants
Vs.
State of Bihar and Ors. - Respondent
C.M.P. No. 551 of 2019
Decided On : 02-06-2020
For the Appellant : A. Alam, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondents: Manoj Kr.
Courts can modify judgments to correct typographical errors in the cause title.
Headnote:
Modification - Typographical Error - The court modified the judgment to correct a typographical error in the cause title by changing the name of the respondent No. 1 from Haradhan Pradhan to Hare Mohan Pradhan.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought modification of a judgment to correct a typographical error in the cause title, where the name of the respondent No. 1 was wrongly mentioned as Haradhan Pradhan instead of Hare Mohan Pradhan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it was a typographical error and allowed the modification to correct the name of the respondent No. 1 in the cause title.
Issues: Typographical error in cause title
Ratio Decidendi: The court can modify a judgment to correct typographical errors in the cause title.
Final Decision: The judgment was modified to correct the name of the respondent No. 1 in the cause title from Haradhan Pradhan to Hare Mohan Pradhan.
ORDER :
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
1. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed with a prayer for modifying the judgment dated 06.12.2018 passed by this Court in S.A. No. 20 of 2011 wherein in the cause title, the name of the respondent No. 1 - who is the petitioner herein, has wrongly been mentioned as Haradhan Pradhan instead of Hare Mohan Pradhan.
2. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner-respondent No. 1 that the actual name of the respondent No. 1 of the second appeal is Hare Mohan Pradhan but in the decree prepared by the appellate court, the same has wrongly been mentioned as Haradhan Pradhan and accordingly, in the second appeal filed by the State, the name of the respondent No. 1 has wrongly been mentioned as Haradhan Pradhan, in the cause title and consequently the same has been incorporated in the judgment of the Second Appeal. Hence, it is submitted that the said judgment dated 06.12.2018 passed by this Court in S.A. No. 20 of 2011 be modified accordingly.
3. Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 3, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that since it is' a typographical error, the State has no objection for modification of the judgment dated 06.12.2018 passed by this Court in S.A. No. 20 of 2011 to the limited extent that the name of the respondent No. 1 be read as Hare Mohan Pradhan instead of Haradhan Pradhan.
4. Considering the aforesaid facts, the judgment dated 06.12.2018 passed by this Court in S.A. No. 20 of 2011 is modified to the extent that the name of the respondent No. 1 as mentioned in the cause title of the said judgment be read as Hare Mohan Pradhan instead of Haradhan Pradhan.
5. This civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly.
