2026:CGHC:14870 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 308 of 2026 Pankaj Kumar S/o Gulabchand Jain Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Singarpur, Tahsil Daondilohara, District- Balod SHOAIB DsSA iHN iggnOW iteA a A dl IR Bbyy ANWARD21+ 07 a 0 2: t 50 e6 36 :. 0 0:447.01 ... Applicant versus

1 - Kamlesh S/o Anupchand Jain Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Arjunda, Tahsil Gundardehi, Present R/o Devri, Tahsil Daondilohara, District- Balod, C.G.

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

(Cause title taken from CIS)

For Applicant : Shri Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 1 : Shri Rajkumar Pali, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Lekhram Dhruv, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge

Order on Board

01.04.2026

1. This MCC has been filed by the applicant (respondent No.

1/plaintiff in second appeal) seeking correction in the cause title of the judgment passed in Second Appeal No. 631/2024, which was dismissed by this Court on

13.03.2026.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the judgment dated 13.03.2026 passed in Second Appeal No. 631/2024, the name of the father of the present applicant, who is respondent No. 1./plaintiff Pankaj Kumar, has wrongly been mentioned as “Anupchand Jain”, whereas the correct name of his father is “Gulabchand Jain”.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though in the memo of appeal, the name of the father of respondent No. 1/plaintiff Pankaj Kumar has been shown as “Anupchand Jain”, the same appears to be a typographical error, and in fact, the name of his father is “Gulabchand Jain”.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.

5. It appears from both the judgments and decrees of learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court that the name of the father of respondent No. 1/plaintiff Pankaj Kumar has been shown as “Gulabchand Jain”, whereas, in the memo of second appeal his father name has been shown as “Anupchand Jain” and as per the cause title of the second appeal, this Court mentioned the details of the parties in the judgment dated 13.03.2026.

6. However, having considered the submissions made by the parties that there is typographical error in the cause title of memo of second appeal and further considering the description of the parties mentioned in the cause title of the judgments and decrees by both the courts, the error crept in the cause title of the judgment rendered in S.A. No. 631/2024, in respect of the name of father of applicant/plaintiff is directed to be corrected, and the name of the father of respondent No. 1/plaintiff Pankaj Kumar be read as “Gulabchand Jain” in place of “Anupchand Jain”.

7. With the aforesaid correction, the MCC stands disposed of.

8. Let this order be made part of the record of Second Appeal No. 631/2024.

Sd/-

(Bibhu Datta Guru)

Judge

Shoaib