Typographical errors in judgments may be rectified under Section 152 of the CPC if such corrections do not alter the merits of the case.

Judgment :

A.C. Behera, J.

1. This is an interlocutory application, which has been filed by the respondent No.1 in a disposed of first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 praying for correction of one letter from her name i.e. from “j” to “g” in the cause title of the judgment and decree passed in that first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 to be read her name as Rageswari Mohanty instead of Rajeswari Mohanty.

The said first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 was preferred by a company i.e. M/s. Magma Leasing Ltd. challenging the judgment and decree passed in the suit vide M.S. No.13 of 1999.

In the suit vide M.S. No.13 of 1999, one company i.e. Consortium Finance and Leasing Ltd. was the defendant No.1.

As the suit vide M.S. No.13 of 1999 was decreed against the defendant No.1 i.e. Consortium Finance and Leasing Ltd. and as the assets and liabilities of defendant No.1-company i.e. Consortium Finance and Leasing Ltd. were transferred in favour of M/s. Magma Leasing Ltd., then M/s. Magma Leasing Ltd. had preferred an first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 challenging the judgment and decree passed in M.S. No.13 of 1999 against the plaintiff of that suit arraying her (plaintiff) as respondent No.1 and arraying the transferor company i.e. Consortium Finance and Leasing Ltd. as proforma respondent No.2 and also arraying defendant No.2 (Team Finance Co. Private Ltd.) as proforma respondent No.3.

2. Heard from the learned counsels of both the sides.

3. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 (who was the sole plaintiff in the suit vide M.S. No.13 of 1999) in R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 that, the judgment and decree of the suit vide M.S. No.13 of 1999 was passed and prepared by the Trial Court indicating her name as Rageswari Mohanty in the cause title of the judgment and decree thereof, for which, her name is required to be corrected from Rajeswari Mohanty to Rageswari Mohanty in the cause title of the judgment and decree passed in R.F.A. No.67 of 2006, to which, the learned counsel for the appellant of the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 objected contending on the basis of its objection that, the cause title of the judgment and decree of the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 has already been prepared on the basis of the appeal memo filed by the appellant indicating her name as Rajeswari Mohanty, for which, there is no defect in indicating the name of the respondent No.1 in the judgment and decree of the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 as Rajeswari Mohanty and that apart, after passing of the judgment and decree in the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006, the appellant M/s. Magma Leasing Ltd. has already preferred an appeal before the Apex Court, which has been registered as Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) Diary No(s).32236/2024 before the Hon’ble Apex Court and in that appeal, the Apex Court has already passed an interim order on dated 13.09.2024 in order to stay the further proceedings of the execution case arising out of the judgment and decree of R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 subject to deposit of Rs.12,00,000/- (rupees twelve lakh) by the appellant M/s. Magma Leasing Ltd. before the Registry of this Hon’ble Courts.

So, according to the appellant in R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 i.e. M/s. Magma Leasing Ltd., when the matter is subjudice before the Apex Court having been numbered as Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) Diary No (s).32236/2024, then, in these circumstances, no correction can be made as per law in the cause title of the judgment and decree of the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006.

4. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, in the plaint of the suit vide M.S. No.13 of 1999, the name of th