Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Ori) 779

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.K. MOHAPATRA, J.
Sabita Jena – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21529 of 2021
Decided On : 29-06-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, A.G.A., Mr. P.K. Muduli, A.G.A., Adv.

Judicial corrections of typographical errors in judgments are permissible to maintain accuracy in judicial records.

Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Modification of Judgment - Correction of typographical errors in a judgment pronounced by the court. (Paras 3-5)

(B) Judicial Procedure - Corrective measures can be adopted to rectify inadvertent typographical errors in judgments to ensure clarity and accuracy in judicial orders. (Paras 4-5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought modification of a previous judgment due to typographical errors in the content of the judgment pronounced on 20.05.2022.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the modification of the judgment by correcting the identified typographical errors while retaining the substance of the original judgment.

Issues: The main issue was whether typographical errors in the judgment could be corrected.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that minor clerical mistakes in a judgment can be amended to uphold the integrity of judicial records.

Result: Application for modification allowed.

Table of Content
1. court proceedings and representation (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. corrections to judgment text (Para 4 , 5)
3. resolution of application (Para 6)
4. issuance of order copy (Para 7)

ORDER :

A.K. MOHAPATRA, J.

I.A. No.7536 of 2022

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State.

3. This is an application for modification/correction of judgment dated 20.05.2022.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that W.P.(C) No.21529 of 2021 was pronounced on 20.05.2022, but inadvertently some typographical errors occurred in 8^th line of papragraph-10, the words “as acted” be mentioned in place of “has acted”, in 2^nd line of words “and the” the words “authorities shall allow the” be inserted, inserted, in 7^th line of the said paragraph after the word “order”, the words “(of transfer)” be inserted and in the same line the word “verify” be deleted and in its place “verified” be inserted and in 8^th line of the said paragraph, the word “failed” be mentioned in place of “modified” and in parapgrah-12 the word “disposed of” be mentioned in place of “allowed”.

5. Accordingly, it is directed that in 8^th line of paragraph-10, it be mentioned as “has acted” instead of “as acted”, in 2^nd line of paragraphs-11, the word “the petitioner” be inserted after the words “petitioner,” in 3^rd line of the said paragraph, the word “vide” be inserted before “dated”, 4^th line of the said paragraph, the words “authorities shall allow the” be inserted in place of “shall”, in 7^th line of the said paragraph, the words “of transfer” be inserted after the word “order” and in the same line, it be mentioned as “verified” in place of “verify”, in 8^th line of the said paragraph, the words “modified” be mentioned in place of “failed” and in paragraph-12, the word “disposed of” be mentioned in place of “allowed”. Rest part of the judgment remaining the same.

6. The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.

7. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document