Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
K.R.MOHAPATRA
Pratap Chandra Patra – Appellant
Versus
Parbati Patra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of case details (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background and procedural history of the case (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. petitioners argue for clerical error correction (Para 5) |
| 4. opposition’s argument against clerical correction (Para 6) |
| 5. interpretation of section 152 c.p.c. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 6. conclusion dismissing the cmp (Para 10) |
ORDER :
1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that T.S. No.150 of 1992 was filed for declaration of right, title and interest as well as for recovery of possession and permanent injunction over Schedule 'A' land, description of which is as under:
| Khata No. | Plot No. | Area (hectares) | Kissam |
|---|---|---|---|
| 55 | 831 | 0.31 | Gharabari (Ghara) |
| 832 | 0.88 | Sarad-II | |
| 833 | 0.29 | Asu | |
| Total A 1.48 decimals | |||
5. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Court has inherent power to correct the error crept in due to accidental slip or omission, so that the judgment and decree passed by the Court is implemented, failing which the entire endeavour made by the Civil Court both in trial as well as appellate stage will be futile. In the instant case, such clerical error could not be pointed out till filing of the executi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
