SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(P&H) 96

VINOD K.SHARMA
Meena Kumari – Appellant
Versus
General Public – Respondent


Judgment

1. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents in spite of service. Proceeded ex parte.

2. The petitioners herein moved a petition under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act (for short the Act ) for issuance of a succession certificate. The said petition was allowed and succession certificate with respect to immovable property as given under the schedule was ordered to be issued. The petitioner was also asked to furnish the requisite stamp papers and indemnity bond for a sum of Rs. 14,18,500.90 ps. (Fourteen lacs eighteen thousand five hundred and paise ninety only) with one surety in the like amount. The petitioners thereafter moved an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for making necessary correction with regard to account number as the same was wrongly mentioned. According to the petitioner, account number was mentioned as 165403 instead of account No. 160403. The said application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Court below by observing that the judgment was passed in accordance with the pleadings and there was no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment or any accidental slip so as to exercise the juris


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top