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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 2828

PATNA HIGH COURT
HARISH KUMAR, J
Abhay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CWJC No. 3008 of 2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Sukanya Bharti
For the Respondents: Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG 12, Dr. Anand Kumar, Adv., Mr. Ranjan Prakash, Adv.

Modification of court order's cause title for deceased petitioner is permissible to ensure justice.

Headnote:The present case concerns a modification of an earlier order regarding the substitution of the original petitioner who has passed away. The court referenced an earlier order allowing substitution of the petitioner’s son, highlighting that clerical errors can obstruct justice. The court found that the original order's title needed correcting to reflect the substitution duly authorized in 2020. Therefore, the present application for modification was allowed pursuant to sincere considerations of justice. The modification application stands allowed.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

3 09-01-2026 Heard Ms. Sukanya Bharti, learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State as well as Dr.

Anand Kumar, learned Advocate representing the NHAI.

2. The present application has been filed for modification of the order dated 03.02.2020 passed in CWJC No. 3008 of 2017 to the extent it requires correction of the cause title of the petitioner in view of the order dated 23.01.2020 passed in the afore noted case allowing the Interlocutory Application for substitution of the original petitioner, who is said to have died on 16.02.2019, by his son.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner taking this Court through the order dated 23.01.2020 passed in CWJC No. 3008 of 2017 has submitted that on account of demise of the original petitioner, his son Abhay Kumar had filed I.A. No. 1 of 2019 for substituting his name, in place of the original petitioner. I.A. was disposed of with a direction to substitute the name of Abhay Kumar but due to inadvertence, in the final order dated 03.02.2020 in the cause title, in place of the name of Abhay Kumar, son of late Surendra Prasad Sharma, the name of the original petitioner has been mentioned and, as such, the petitioner is facing difficulty to approach the authority concerned in terms with the order of the Court.

4. Learned Advocates for the State and the NHAI submit at the Bar that the order was passed long back on 03.02.2020 and the petitioner has approached this Court for modification of the order after five years.

5. Be that as it may, considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note of the order dated 23.01.2020 passed by this Court, whereby substitution petition was allowed and direction has been given to substitute the name of Abhay Kumar but the same could not be done, the present modification application stands allowed with a direction to the office to make necessary correction in the cause title of the order dated 03.02.2020 forthwith.

6. The modification application stands allowed.

(Harish Kumar, J)

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 Back to top